Three tools with visible schemas and descriptions, but significant quality gaps. Tool names lack action verbs (listAllApis, getApiDetails, executeApi use camelCase but are acceptable). Descriptions are present but generic and under 100 chars. Input schemas exist but parameters lack detailed descriptions beyond single-line text. No output schema documentation. Error handling returns plain text without recovery guidance. Parameters like 'params' in executeApi are underspecified (type: object with no properties defined). No enum constraints, no validation rules, no idempotency hints. Tool composition is reasonable (three separate concerns), but descriptions don't explain WHEN to use each tool or what data flows between them.

• Define 'params' in executeApi as a structured object with explicit properties and types. E.g., properties: {field1: {type: string, description: '...'}, field2: {type: number, ...}}. If params vary by API, document this dependency and provide examples.
• Add output schema documentation to each tool. E.g., listAllApis returns {apis: [{id: string, name: string, category: string, description: string}]}. This enables LLMs to chain tools correctly.
• Expand descriptions to 100-200 chars. E.g., 'Execute a registered API by ID and parameters. Use after calling getApiDetails to understand required params. Returns the API response or error message.' This clarifies intent and dependencies.
• Enhance error messages with recovery hints. E.g., 'API "xyz" not found. Call listAllApis to see available APIs.' This guides the LLM to self-correct.
• Add parameter constraints: apiId description should specify format (e.g., 'alphanumeric slug, 1-50 chars'). params description should list common fields or link to API schema documentation.