Search GenAI solutions

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return shape (short projection) and directs to get_solution for full records. However, it omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (though limit param exists), result ordering, or what happens with empty results. This is a moderate disclosure but has gaps.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and result, then provide a clear pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, with no fluff or repetition. Ideal conciseness for a search tool.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the main input mechanism (free text and filters), the output projection, and the follow-up sibling call. However, it does not explain the overall filtering logic (AND across parameters) or pagination, which are implicit from the limit parameter. Still, it is reasonably complete for standard usage.

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 high (86%), so the schema already provides strong param documentation. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how multiple filters combine or the meaning of limit's default). Given the high baseline, the description's value is neutral; it doesn't degrade but doesn't enhance.

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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'curated database of generative AI tools', and specifies the method 'by free text and filters'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'returns a short projection (id, name, type, url); call get_solution...' and implicitly from list_categories (for valid values of type) and compare_solutions (not mentioned but different purpose).

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 tells the agent when to use get_solution ('for the full record') after a search, which provides a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid search_solutions or when to use list_categories or compare_solutions, leaving some ambiguity for related sibling tools.

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