Search Api Server List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool lists servers; it does not clarify read-only safety, pagination behavior, filtering behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. The word 'List' weakly implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm it or describe operational constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently structured and easy to scan. Its terseness is a completeness problem rather than a conciseness problem, so it scores reasonably well here.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, three undocumented parameters, and no pagination or filtering context, the description is too sparse for an agent to use the tool confidently. It should at least mention that filters and pagination can refine the list.

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 schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage: filters, page_limit, and page_offset. The description does not explain any of them, nor does it clarify that 'List all' can be narrowed by filters or paginated. This violates the expected parameter semantics for a low-coverage schema.

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 clear verb and resource: 'List all Search API servers.' It is immediately understandable and distinguishes the broad listing purpose from single-server siblings like search_api_server_get. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent how it differs from siblings such as search_api_index_list or search_api_server_get.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. An agent must infer that this tool is for listing all Search API servers rather than retrieving a specific one or listing indexes. There is no mention of when to prefer it over search_api_server_get or other search_api_server_* tools.

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