search_apis

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'search', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or result behavior beyond the search.

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 one-sentence description is appropriately short and front-loaded for a simple search tool; there is no filler. It could add a little more useful detail without becoming verbose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not disclose whether results are a list, snippets, or full endpoint data, nor does it mention the required projectName scoping. The minimal wording is adequate only for a very simple search operation.

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 100% — both keyword (with the fields it searches) and projectName are documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so it is at 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?

The description states a specific action (search) and resource (API interfaces) with the means (by keyword). It is not a tautology of the tool name because it adds the keyword-based search mechanism, and the sibling names (get_api_endpoints, get_api_detail) suggest search is distinct. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings.

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 this tool is for keyword-driven lookup, but it does not state when to prefer it over get_api_endpoints or get_api_detail, nor does it provide any exclusion or alternative guidance.

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