strale_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses cost behavior ('Free to search', 'Most under €0.10') and scope ('250+'). However, it omits pagination behavior details, rate limits, and return format structure despite the presence of an offset parameter implying paginated results.

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 and efficiently structured: scope claim → categorical proof → pricing context. Every element earns its place; the parenthetical examples justify the '250+' claim while helping users identify relevant search terms.

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 search tool with good schema coverage, the description adequately covers the searchable domain and cost model. It falls short of describing the return value structure (which would help given no output schema exists), but provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what capabilities exist within the Strale ecosystem.

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%, documenting query, category, and offset sufficiently. The description does not explicitly reference these parameters, but given the comprehensive schema coverage, no additional parameter semantics are required from the description text.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search Strale's 250+ API capabilities'), clearly positioning it as a discovery tool. The extensive category list (KYC, validation, Web3, etc.) distinguishes it from execution-focused siblings like strale_execute and strale_transaction.

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 implicit usage guidance by listing searchable categories (compliance, validation, etc.), indicating when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit contrast with siblings—particularly failing to state that users should search here before invoking strale_execute.

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