Search the Zapier app directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals an important behavioral nuance: 'Without a query, returns the most popular apps.' It also discloses that results contain slugs usable elsewhere. It does not state return structure, auth needs, or rate limits, but for a search tool the core behavior is covered. This is above the minimum viable level.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the default behavior is stated succinctly, and the integration with find_zap_templates is included in a single clause. 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?

For a read-only search tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, default behavior, and output usage. It doesn't specify the exact response shape, but 'returned slugs' implies the necessary output field. A fully self-contained description might mention the response format, but this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (limit: max results with min/max/default; query: app name to search for). Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate. The phrase 'returned slugs' hints at the query parameter's purpose but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a precise resource ('Zapier's directory of 9,000+ integrated apps'), and the search method ('by name'). It also hints at the tool's role in a pipeline by mentioning 'returned slugs' with find_zap_templates, which distinguishes it from that sibling without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context: it is the tool to use for discovering apps and obtaining slugs, with an explicit pointer to the sibling tool ('Use the returned slugs with find_zap_templates'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the chaining instruction effectively communicates the workflow. No exclusions are mentioned, so it's not a 5.

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