discover_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool can show 'affordable call counts based on remaining budget' with budget_aware=true, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided simultaneously.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage instructions for each parameter. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct guidance. It's appropriately sized for a tool with four parameters and no annotations.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use different parameters, and a key behavioral feature (budget awareness). The main gap is lack of output format details, but with no output schema, this would be helpful.

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 parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the semantic relationship between parameters: url fetches a specific API, query searches by keyword, category filters by category, and budget_aware affects affordability display. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Discover L402-enabled APIs' with specific verbs (search, fetch, browse) and resources (APIs, manifests, endpoints, pricing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'access_l402_resource' (which likely accesses specific APIs) by focusing on discovery rather than usage.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use different parameters: 'Use 'query' to search...', 'use 'url' to fetch...', 'Use 'category' to browse...'. It also specifies 'If omitted, searches the registry instead' for the url parameter, offering clear alternatives.

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