search_endpoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that results are ranked by relevance, automatically falls back to fuzzy search on no exact matches, and includes a matchType and optional score field. This is substantial for a search tool.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, ranking, fallback/response fields, and post-search guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or extraneous 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the response structure (matchType, score) and fallback behavior. It also references sibling tools for next steps. It could mention pagination or limit usage, but overall it's fairly comprehensive for a search tool.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., it implies query searches across specific fields and mentions limit's default, but otherwise provides no new param-level insights.

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 explicitly states 'Search endpoints by keyword across operationId, path, summary, and description,' which is a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like list_endpoints_by_tag (list) and search_schemas (different resource).

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 ends with 'After finding the target endpoint, use get_endpoint for full details or get_types for TypeScript types,' providing clear guidance on next steps and differentiation from other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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