search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses the output format and the no-arguments behavior, which covers the essential behavioral traits for a non-mutating catalog search. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any rate limits.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the action and resource, then providing output details and a usage tip. No filler or redundancy.

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 catalog search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, return contents, and invocation options. The optional parameters are all explained in the schema, and the description provides the remaining context.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that calling with no arguments returns all categories, clarifying the optionality of parameters beyond individual schema entries.

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 tool searches the Mailchimp Marketing API catalog to discover endpoints, specifying the returned fields (method, path, summary, parameter details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_members which search for member data.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: discover endpoints and view categories. It explicitly mentions calling with no arguments to see all categories, but does not contrast itself with alternatives like search_members or explain when to prefer endpoint discovery over actual data search.

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