run_futurepedia_tools_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned field set and the billing model ('1 point per returned record'), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not confirm the read-only nature or describe pagination behavior across start_page/max_items, leaving the operational profile partly unstated.

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 dense but efficient sentences with the verb and scope front-loaded; the returned fields and cost note are packed in without filler. Slightly run-on, but every clause carries usable 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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the cost model. What remains missing is pagination/limits behavior and any guidance on page iteration, which matters given start_page and max_items.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the enum values. The description's 'sorting, pricing, feature and verified filters' merely restates parameter names and the slug/URL example duplicates the schema's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no syntax or format detail.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the AI tools of one Futurepedia category,' and the parenthetical slug/URL example pins down the identifier format. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling run_futurepedia_tools or run_futurepedia_categories, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 the usage context (browse one category with filters) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as run_futurepedia_tools or run_futurepedia_tools_alternatives. In a family with several near-identically named Futurepedia tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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