directory_search_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral context: the paid path costs $0.001 USDC via x402 on Base, while browsing the human directory is free, and the response contains listing count, price, and an example call. However, it does not state whether invoking this describe tool incurs that charge, nor any rate limits or auth requirements, leaving the most consequential ambiguity unresolved.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is described, then returns, then pricing. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler. Slight redundancy between 'AgentPay Directory Search' and 'AgentPay Directory' mention is minor.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-free info tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the subject, the returned fields, and the payment rail. The one missing piece an agent needs is whether calling this tool is itself free or a paid x402 call, which matters given the pricing detail it does include.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not invent or misdescribe any inputs.

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 resource (the AgentPay Directory Search capability) and what it returns: live listing count, price, and an example call. An agent can tell this is an informational/describe tool rather than an execution tool, though it never contrasts itself against the near-identical siblings directory_price_check, directory_performance_info, or agentpaystore_directory.

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 only implied by the phrasing 'Describe the AgentPay Directory Search' and the free-vs-paid split. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus directory_price_check or directory_performance_info, and no note on whether this info call itself is free or billable — a meaningful gap in a cluster of similarly named lookup tools.

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