Find a Tanvo app

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: results are curated apps with tuned preset looks and real example outputs, and an empty query switches the call from search to trending listing. No pagination or result-field detail, but the added context is genuine.

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 purpose, then query examples, then the follow-up workflow. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 3-parameter, no-output-schema search tool this is nearly complete: the agent knows what it searches, how to phrase queries, what the results conceptually are, and which siblings to invoke next. Minor gaps are the undocumented limit default/cap and the concrete shape of returned app records.

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 coverage is 67% (kind and query documented, limit not). The description reinforces query semantics with natural-language examples mapped to the image/video/music categories covered by the kind enum, which helps the agent formulate calls. It adds nothing for limit, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Tanvo's ready-made AI apps), enumerates the content categories, and gives five concrete example queries that make the scope unmistakable. An agent can distinguish it from generate_image or list_models without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent through the workflow: 'Use get_app for the looks, then generate_from_app to run one,' and the query parameter notes that an empty string lists trending apps. Clear context and named alternatives, though it does not state when *not* to use this tool (e.g. for raw model selection via list_models).

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