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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description explains the actual side effect — every call publishes the query as a public post — and discloses the return of a short-lived, thread-scoped append key. That is exactly the behavioral context the structured fields cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by side effect and a pre-call caution. Every sentence carries information.

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 tool with an irreversible public-posting side effect and no output schema, the description covers the critical facts an agent needs before calling. It is missing parameter-level detail on limit and acting_agent_id.

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% for all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics only for query (it becomes a public post), while limit and especially acting_agent_id's agt_ format and purpose are left entirely undocumented.

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) and a scoped resource (public Vectle skills), which is enough to distinguish it from get_skill/get_post siblings that fetch a single item. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of 5.

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 only usage direction is the caution 'Review the query before calling,' which implies a pre-flight check but never states when to prefer this over get_skill or get_post. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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