infomaniak_search

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: catalogue entries may be missing and reviewed schemas are fetched lazily, which tells the agent results can be partial and a follow-up read may be 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the caveats. The second sentence is slightly telegraphic ('load on demand') but earns its place by conveying the lazy-loading behavior.

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 exists, so the description should ideally clarify what a search result contains (operation identifiers usable with infomaniak_read), which it does not. With annotations covering safety and only three simple params, it is minimally adequate but leaves the result shape and workflow linkage underspecified.

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% across three parameters. The phrase 'catalogue entries may be unavailable' loosely gestures at include_unavailable, but limit and query are entirely unexplained and no formats, defaults, or range guidance are given in the description.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Discover public API operations' — an agent knows this is a discovery/search tool. It implicitly distinguishes itself from infomaniak_read (which fetches a reviewed schema) but never names siblings explicitly.

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?

'Reviewed schemas load on demand' hints at a search-then-read workflow, suggesting this is the entry point before infomaniak_read. However, it never states when to use this over infomaniak_catalogue or infomaniak_read, leaving the routing to inference.

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