publicapis_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the 'free APIs' scoping constraint; it says nothing about result size, pagination, ordering, or what an empty query returns.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the search scope is front-loaded. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

Reasonable for a read-only search tool, but there is no output schema and the description does not say what a result looks like, whether all four filters combine, or whether calling with no parameters returns the entire directory. Those are the gaps that matter for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema (including the auth value set and the pointer to publicapis_categories). The description only echoes the title and category dimensions and says nothing about the auth/https filters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 (search) plus the resource (the Public APIs directory) and the dimensions searched (name or category), with an additional scope qualifier (free APIs). It never mentions the closely related publicapis_categories or publicapis_random siblings, so it is clear on its own but not explicitly differentiated.

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 implies 'use this to find APIs' but gives no when/when-not guidance and names no alternative. The only routing hint (use publicapis_categories for the category list) lives in the schema, not the description.

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