apiosk_search

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying that this tool is for catalog browsing/filtering, not for retrieving live paid data, which implies a meaningful functional boundary beyond what the annotations convey.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the alternative routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool has a rich input schema, full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and safety annotations. The description completes the picture by defining when this tool is the right choice and when to use apiosk_discover, leaving no material gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds some orientation by mentioning 'capability, price, or category,' which maps to search, sort, and category, but it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Search and browse the Apiosk catalog.' It further specifies the dimensions ('by capability, price, or category') and explicitly distinguishes this tool from apiosk_discover, making its role unambiguous.

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 says when to use this tool ('For browsing/filtering the catalog') and when not to ('When the goal is to fulfil a user request with real paid data... prefer apiosk_discover'), naming the alternative tool and the selection condition. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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