discover_missions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does well by disclosing that ranking combines keyword relevance with a live providerHealth success-rate signal, and that degrading providers cause templates to slide down automatically. It also states what the response contains, though it does not discuss auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation, the second explains the return structure and ranking behavior, and the third gives the usage context. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful 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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned fields (slug, version, title, description, paramSchema, match reasons) and explaining the ranking mechanism. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it omits an example response or note on edge cases like empty queries.

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%, so both query and max_results are already documented with sensible descriptions. The tool description adds minimal new parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing the natural-language nature of the query, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search mission templates by natural-language query.' It also clarifies that results are ranked and what fields they contain, distinguishing this from list_mission_templates, which presumably returns an unranked list. The naming of the follow-up tool, start_mission, further anchors its role.

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 gives clear context: 'Use this to find the right template by intent before calling start_mission.' This tells the agent when to use it, but it does not explicitly name list_mission_templates as an alternative or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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