search_api_operations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: what fields keywords are matched against and that results are operation_id values. It omits read-only confirmation, result ordering, and any note on how limit interacts with total matches, so a small gap remains.

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, zero filler, with the search scope stated before the downstream-use note. Every clause carries information about matching or output.

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 read-only search tool with five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers matching semantics and return shape adequately. It leaves unaddressed how results are ordered or what happens when the query is empty, minor for this tool class.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning by naming the four fields that the query string matches against, which the schema's query description does not specify. It does not explain how access/method/category filters interact with the keyword match, leaving room above baseline but not at ceiling.

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 and resource ('Search every vManage API operation') and clarifies the match scope: path, operationId, category and summary. Naming describe_api_operation / call_api_operation as consumers of the returned operation_id values makes it immediately distinguishable from those siblings.

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 return-value clause implicitly positions this as the lookup step before describe_api_operation / call_api_operation, which is clear workflow guidance. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as list_api_categories or note when browsing is preferable to keyword search, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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