Search API endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it searches fields like names, titles, descriptions, groups, and URLs, and supports multi-word queries. No contradictions exist.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence states the action and scope, while the second covers capabilities and intended use. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple search tool, the description, combined with detailed schema and safety annotations, is complete. It specifies what is searched, why to use it, and the fact that it is read-only. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the purpose is discovery rather than detailed retrieval.

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%: 'query' is described as 'Search query (supports multiple words)' and 'limit' as 'Max results (default 10)'. The description does not add any parameter details beyond the schema, so it receives the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('the Upmind API reference') with scale ('1,270+ endpoints'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_endpoint_details or list_api_groups. It also details the search scope (names, titles, descriptions, groups, URLs), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to discover the right endpoint before calling live tools or building integrations.' This explicitly tells when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the discovery-vs-direct-access distinction is implied.

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