Search endpoints

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying that results are endpoint_id candidates only and that get_endpoint_schema should be called next, setting expectations about the return value and workflow.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides an actionable next step, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 output schema, annotations, and schema-provided defaults, the description covers the main workflow adequately. It clearly states what the tool returns and what to do next, though it leaves some parameter semantics implicit.

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 only 40%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters like limit, include_hidden, and include_deprecated. It does not mention any parameter behavior or filtering semantics, leaving meaningful gaps for the agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('JustOneAPI endpoint candidates') and clarifies that the query is natural language. It also states the output nature ('Returns endpoint_id candidates'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_endpoint_schema and call_endpoint.

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 the tool: when you need to discover endpoint candidates from natural language. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to siblings, aside from pointing to get_endpoint_schema as the next step.

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