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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the search scope (title, description, body text), the return format (snippet of the matching passage), and that results are ranked by relevance. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or explicitly that the operation is read-only, but for a search tool the described behavior is largely sufficient.

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?

Three sentences ordered from scope to return behavior to usage guidance, with zero filler. The four short examples are compact and directly reinforce how to phrase queries.

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 three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, what comes back (snippets, ranking), and when to use it. Nothing critical an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the query searches title, description, and body text, which is more specific than the schema's generic 'Search terms' text. It does not elaborate on the limit or category parameters, but those are fully documented in the schema.

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 (full-text search) and resource (every article on loopingagent.com), and specifies exactly which fields are searched. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_article (by ID) and list_articles (browsing) by framing it as a relevance-ranked discovery tool for quoting or citing.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use scenario ('find an article to quote or cite on a topic') with four concrete query examples spanning crypto and AI topics. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., get_article for known articles) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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