discover_apis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what the tool returns, whether it queries a registry, whether results are ranked, or whether there are side effects. The behavior is implied by the name but not made explicit.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence gives the core action and the second scopes when it applies. The capability list is long but directly useful for matching user intent.

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?

The description and schema together cover purpose and parameters well, but with no output schema and no annotations the agent must infer return shape and follow-up steps like calling get_api_details. The callable_only registry nuance is detailed in the parameter schema but not surfaced in the main description.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a job-to-be-done framing and an expanded list of query intents (web search, scraping, email, SMS, speech, PDFs, etc.), which helps the agent formulate the query parameter beyond the schema examples.

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 identifies the tool as 'Find APIs by job-to-be-done' and provides concrete capability examples such as web search, SMS, PDFs, and browser automation. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_details (known API) and call_api (executing an API).

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 explicitly states when to use it: when the user asks 'what API can do X?', wants provider recommendations, or needs various external capabilities. It doesn't provide when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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