agentpaystore_directory

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search and mentions that results include price, endpoint URL, and detail page link, but it does not state authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether any side effects occur.

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 action and resource, then moves efficiently through parameters, return fields, and site URL. It is appropriately sized for the tool, with only minor extra wording such as the standalone site link.

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 is no output schema, the description usefully states what matches include: price, endpoint URL, and detail page link. Combined with the parameter explanations, it is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it could say more about result limits or pagination.

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 0%, so the description has to compensate for all three parameters, and it largely does: q is free-text search over name/headline/description, category includes concrete examples, and slug retrieves one listing. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though format details such as case sensitivity or partial-match behavior are still absent.

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, "Search," and a specific resource, the AgentPay Directory, and explains that it is a registry of machine-payable API endpoints and real-world action services. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools such as directory_search_info or marketplace_browse.

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?

Usage is implied by saying to search the AgentPay Directory and by listing the q, category, and slug parameters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related directory or marketplace tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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