Search available APIs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only search and clarifies scope (enabled or not), but it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or other operational traits. It adds some useful context but leaves key behavioral details unstated.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the usage note follows immediately. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter read/search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and downstream use well enough to call correctly. The main missing element is pagination behavior for the undocumented pageToken, but no output schema exists to explain return values.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema, but pageToken has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented pagination parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists/searches Google APIs available to enable on a project, including enabled or not. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling gcp_list_enabled_apis, which only covers enabled APIs. It also names the downstream tool gcp_enable_api, making its role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to find the exact service name to pass to gcp_enable_api, which gives a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly name gcp_list_enabled_apis as the alternative for enabled-only listings, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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