Lucky API catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds context about the API source and filtering workflow, but it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, or how the returned catalog entries should be consumed.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the filtering guidance. No words are wasted, and the pointer to lucky_api_call 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 read-only listing tool, the description is usable, especially with annotations covering safety. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the catalog entries look like, how the limit applies, or how to map results into lucky_api_call. These gaps make it less complete than it could be.

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 0%, so the description is the only place parameter meaning can be conveyed. It explains that module and side-effect are filters, but it does not explain the limit parameter or what values module should take. The sideEffect enum in the schema helps, but the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 identifies the action as listing APIs and the resource as APIs discovered from the Lucky 3.0.0 web frontend. It also hints at the relationship to lucky_api_call, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling lucky_api_describe.

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 gives a clear usage context: filter the catalog by module or side-effect level before using lucky_api_call. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like lucky_api_describe, but the intended workflow is understandable.

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