sb_api_find

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description correctly reinforces the read-only nature. It adds valuable behavioral context: search returns one line per match, the full call sheet includes parameter types, credential requirements, and body fields with 'traps' from doc comments, which is beyond what annotations provide. The phrase 'read off the handler that decodes them' hints at data source, but it could be clearer about the output format.

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, dense sentence that efficiently front-loads both modes and their parameters, with no wasted words. It packs key details about output and scope without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes, 4 params, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture: it explains what each mode returns, the scope (all operations), and behavioral nuances. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like sb_api_call, but otherwise covers the essentials.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining that 'query' is a natural language intent and 'id' returns a 'full call sheet' with specific contents (types, credential, body fields with traps), exceeding what the schema alone conveys. It also implies 'tag' and 'limit' usage but does not elaborate on them, so it's above baseline but not perfect.

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 two specific modes: searching platform API operations by intent (with query, returning one line per match) and reading one operation's full call sheet (with id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sb_api_call by focusing on discovery/documentation rather than execution, and the mention of 'all 524 operations' gives concrete scope.

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 implies when to use each mode (query for search, id for full details) and notes that it reaches all operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like sb_api_call or sb_catalog_search, leaving some inference required.

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