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

Annotations only cover read-only/no-open-world, but the description adds matching semantics (every word must match, no operators), ordering (newest first), a hard result cap of 18, the shape of returned items, that the call is free, and a prompt-injection warning that listing text is third-party data to be treated as data, not instructions. That is substantial behavior disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: scope/limit, match semantics, result shape plus follow-up tool, and the safety note. The most decision-relevant facts (what it returns and the 18 cap) are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description still characterizes the return payload (summary and links per item) and the retrieval path for full records. Combined with the match semantics and cap, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema lacks: the query is an AND-of-all-words match with no operator support, and any language is accepted. This tells the agent how to phrase queries rather than just what the field is.

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 (full-text search over live listings) and immediately delimits the result set with ordering and a hard cap of 18. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_post by noting that results are summaries/links and that the full listing must be fetched elsewhere.

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?

Clearly routes the agent: search here for summaries, then call get_post to retrieve a complete listing. It does not state when not to search (e.g., browsing via list_categories), 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.