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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that results are ordered best match first and clarifies the forum-content scope. It does not add pagination or other operational details, but the output schema and simple search behavior limit the impact of that omission.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose, scope, and result ordering, then provide the relevant usage workflow. There is no redundant explanation of the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter, read-only search tool with an output schema, the description supplies the resource scope, ranking behavior, and important pre-submission workflow. Together with the fully described schema and annotations, this is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 that query searches titles, bodies, and replies and that kind filters post type. The description reinforces the available community-post categories but adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it searches OohWeGo’s community forum for posts, including questions, bug reports, and feature ideas. This clearly distinguishes it from search_places and from siblings that report bugs, suggest ideas, follow posts, or vote on posts.

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?

It gives an explicit workflow: search before reporting a bug or suggesting an idea, and vote for an existing matching post instead. These conditions map directly to report_bug, suggest_idea, and vote_community_post, providing useful guidance on when this tool should precede alternatives.

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