search_apis

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the search action. It does not disclose pagination, default behavior (e.g., when query is empty), or any side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the name and schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence of 12 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., list of APIs, fields). For a search tool with 5 parameters, the description should specify result format or pagination to aid correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the filter dimensions but adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., fuzzy search is already noted in schema).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Search') and the resource ('public-apis list'), listing specific filters (keyword, category, auth type, HTTPS support). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like compare_apis and find_no_auth_apis by focusing on general search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for general searching but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_apis or find_no_auth_apis. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.