search_api_operations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the result shape (method, path template, summary, source index), the constraint that callable_with_get_api_path is true only for GET, and that the lookup is local and contacts no appliance. It stops short of describing error or empty-result behavior, which keeps it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the [READ] tag and the action, then ordering guidance, then return semantics, then matching rules. Dense but every sentence earns its place; the trailing 'Local: contacts no appliance' is terse but carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return fields and does so, plus it explains the ranking behavior that determines result order. Both parameters are documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds matching semantics the schema does not: all query words must appear in method, path or summary, and path matches rank first. That materially changes how an agent should phrase a query; limit is left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search the Aria Operations suite-api operation index') and scopes it to the versions shipped with the skill (vROps 8.6 + VCF Operations 9.1). It explicitly positions itself relative to the sibling get_api_path and to the dedicated tools, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit ordering ('before get_api_path') and an explicit exclusion ('Use only when no dedicated tool answers the question'), naming the alternative. This is the when/when-not/alternative structure at its clearest.

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