Semantic API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'deep discovery' but doesn't explain what that means operationally - whether it returns documentation, endpoints, examples, or other metadata. There's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output takes. The description is too vague to adequately inform the agent about behavioral traits.

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 reasonably concise with a clear two-part structure: a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The Args section is efficiently formatted. However, the opening sentence could be more front-loaded with specific information about what 'deep discovery' actually produces, and the description could benefit from more specific guidance about tool selection.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. For a discovery tool with 2 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more context about what 'discovery' entails, how it differs from sibling tools, and what kind of information the agent can expect to learn about the provider/API. The current description leaves too much ambiguity about the tool's function and value.

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?

The description provides basic parameter information in the Args section, explaining that provider_name is the 'Name of the API provider' with examples, and user_intent is an 'Optional description of what you want to do with this API'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this minimal information doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation. The description adds some value but doesn't provide detailed semantics about parameter formats, constraints, or usage patterns.

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 the tool performs 'deep discovery of a specific provider/API by name and intent', which provides a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'deep discovery' entails and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like semantic_discover_url or semantic_query. The description mentions the verb 'discover' and resource 'provider/API' but lacks specificity about what discovery actually yields.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools semantic_discover_url or semantic_query. The description mentions 'by name and intent' but doesn't explain when this approach is preferred over alternatives or what scenarios warrant its use. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or comparisons to other tools.

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