search_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states that it returns endpoint_id candidates. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or that it is a read-only query. More detail is needed.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but somewhat adequate because the workflow (call get_endpoint_schema next) partly compensates. However, details about return format, pagination, or search behavior are missing.

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?

The description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Although schema coverage is 50%, the tool has 6 parameters and the description does not compensate with any usage hints or format details.

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 verb 'Find' and resource 'JustSerpAPI endpoint candidates', distinguishing from siblings like get_endpoint_schema (mentioned as next step) and call_endpoint. It is specific and actionable.

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 explains when to use the tool (searching endpoints from natural language) and provides a workflow hint to call get_endpoint_schema next. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare alternatives like list_services.

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