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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating it returns post IDs and that these can be forked, which is not directly in the annotations or schema. It does not describe pagination or rate limits, but these are in the schema.

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 three concise sentences: first states the tool's function, second details search criteria, third gives usage guidance and return value. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only search tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and what it returns (post IDs), which is important since there is no output schema. No critical context is missing.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description merely summarizes the search dimensions (keyword, modality, tags) without adding extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search community-shared AI flows on cnaps.ai.' It specifies the search dimensions (keyword, modality, tags) and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_flows by focusing on community content. The mention of returning post IDs for forking with fork_community_flow adds clarity.

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 explicitly provides a when-to-use scenario: 'Use this to discover existing flows before creating new ones.' It also mentions how to use the results (fork with fork_community_flow). However, it does not explicitly state when_not to use it or name alternative search tools, though the community focus differentiates it.

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