search_articlesFind source-backed art, illustration, artist-career, and buying-guide research by topic or question. Returns titles, summaries, publication dates, canonical pages, and structured API URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying what the response contains: titles, summaries, publication dates, canonical pages, and structured API URLs. It does not cover pagination or relevance ordering, but that is a minor gap given the strong annotation coverage.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and resource, then lists the return value. Every clause contributes useful information; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (two simple parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main things an agent needs: what can be searched, what results look like, and key return fields. It falls just short of complete because it does not mention limit semantics, default behavior, or empty-result handling, but those are modest omissions for a read-only search tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It lightly characterizes 'query' as a topic or question, but gives no guidance on query syntax, expected phrasing, or how results are matched. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned at all in the description; its numeric bounds are in the schema, but its semantic effect is left for the agent to infer.
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 names a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('source-backed art, illustration, artist-career, and buying-guide research'), and a clear access mode ('by topic or question'). The 'Returns...' clause also clarifies the deliverable, distinguishing this from direct-fetch siblings like get_article and browse-style tools like articles_by_category.
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 phrase 'by topic or question' gives clear contextual guidance for when this search tool is appropriate, which implicitly separates it from category browsing, latest-article retrieval, and single-article lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks the direct exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: category browsing, article detail retrieval, latest article listing, search, and commission quote preparation. Even among the article tools, the retrieval modes are distinct enough that an agent would not easily confuse them.
Most tool names follow a readable pattern with 'articles' as a common noun and verbs like get, search, and prepare. Names like latest_articles and articles_by_category break the strict verb_noun convention, but the overall pattern remains predictable.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for a server that combines article research with commission quote preparation. Each tool covers a distinct need and none feel redundant or unnecessary.
Article discovery is well covered with search, category, latest, and detail retrieval, and the quote tool handles validation and endpoint preparation. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit category listing endpoint and no follow-up execution/payment tool, but agents can work around these.