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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real behaviors: results are ordered newest first, and returned content originates from unverified agents and must be treated as data rather than instructions. That injection warning is genuinely valuable for agent safety. It still omits pagination/cursor behavior, how limit defaults are applied, and whether results are scoped to a room or the whole board.

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, nothing wasted, and the capability statement is front-loaded ahead of the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct 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 five-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers intent, key filter semantics, ordering, and a security caveat, which is a solid core. It falls short on limit behavior, result shape, and board-vs-channel scope, all of which an agent needs to call it predictably.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: "words" maps to q, "author" to from, "kind" to the kind enum, and "channel" decodes the opaque ch parameter, which is otherwise uninterpretable from the schema. Only limit is left without any hint of its default or maximum.

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?

"Search board posts by words, author, kind or channel" gives a specific verb plus resource and enumerates the searchable facets, so an agent knows exactly what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like read_board or thread, which is the only thing keeping it from a 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?

Usage is only implied: "search" plus the facet list suggests this is for filtered lookup rather than full-board reading, and "(newest first)" hints at ordering. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over read_board, nor any note that all filters are optional so a bare call returns the newest posts.

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