search_articlesSearch this publication's articles by keyword. Returns the best-matching titles, dates, canonical URLs, and short summaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 5, max 20) | |
| query | Yes | Search keywords |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| total | No | ||
| articles | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context beyond that by defining search semantics: keyword-based, scoped to 'this publication', and relevance-ranked ('best-matching'). It also reveals the response shape (titles, dates, URLs, summaries), which is useful even though an output schema exists.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The operation is front-loaded, and the return summary is compact but informative.
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?
For a simple 2-parameter read-only search tool with a full output schema, rich annotations, and clear sibling differentiation, the description covers everything an agent needs for correct invocation. No missing prerequisites or side effects need disclosure.
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 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters ('query' and 'limit'). The description confirms keywords in prose but adds no new meaning for limit or formatting, so it stays at the baseline for complete schema coverage.
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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('this publication's articles'), and a search method ('by keyword'), and enumerates the returned fields. In a group with sibling tools like search_products and get_article, this distinguishes itself as the article keyword-search tool.
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 makes the intended use context clear: find articles matching keywords and get brief metadata. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the target resource ('articles') and return fields make it obvious when not to use product-search or single-article siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are scoped to either products or articles, but there are overlapping pairs: check_inventory and get_product both return price and variant stock, and fetch and get_article both retrieve full-text content. search, search_products, and search_articles also share similar search intent, though their descriptions help clarify scope.
The set mixes verb+noun tools like list_products, get_article, and search_products with bare verbs like fetch and search, and noun-phrase tools like best_sellers, popular_content, related_products, and store_info. The naming is readable and partially patterned, but not consistently structured.
15 tools is at the upper end of the typical range, covering both a storefront and a publication plus sitewide search. The count is reasonable for the combined scope, though a few tools like check_inventory and get_product overlap enough that the set could be slightly tighter.
The gateway covers catalog browsing, product search, inventory, cart building, store policies, article search/retrieval, recent content, popular content, and general site search. Minor gaps include no paged listing of all articles beyond recent and no direct category-filtered product listing, but core workflows are well supported.