search_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful behavior by stating that all search terms must match under AND semantics, which goes beyond the schema. But it does not mention output behavior, edge cases, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the AND semantics sentence adds critical clarifying information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 straightforward search tool with a fully described schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the purpose and key matching semantics, but it could be slightly more complete by noting what the output contains or how it differs from list_endpoints.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the AND semantics already noted, which mainly clarifies the q parameter's matching behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Search'), resource ('API endpoints'), and method ('by keyword'), and even clarifies matching behavior with 'AND semantics'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_endpoints or get_endpoint, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool: when an agent needs to find API endpoints by keyword. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_endpoints or get_endpoint, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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