search_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('grouped by connector'), the summary/full-definition toggle, and the critical caveat that output schemas are unavailable. It omits pagination and authentication details, but the stated behaviors are more than minimal.

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 four sentences with no filler. The core purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and the output-schema caveat is placed at the end where it is least likely to distract. It could be slightly tighter, but each sentence 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?

For a discovery tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential outcome, the return grouping, the full-definition option, and points to external API docs for response structures. Pagination and custom-connector identifier details are present in the schema, so there are no fatal gaps for an agent invoking the tool.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful examples for query and connector and restates the summary toggle, but it does not clarify pageSize, pageToken, or identifier beyond what the schema provides. This is a solid baseline-3 performance.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search available tools (actions) exposed by connectors in the given environment.' It also gives concrete filter examples and notes the grouped-by-connector return format, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_connectors and search_docs.

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 implies when to use this tool — when you need to discover connector-exposed actions — and shows how to filter by connector or action. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, so routing guidance remains implicit.

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