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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses several useful traits: no key is needed, the query is sanitized first, external results can be skipped with external=False, and results include thread ids, titles, snippets, and 'confirmed' counts. It also explains the fallback to 'elsewhere' when Hive has no answer. It does not explicitly state read-only safety or rate-limit behavior, but the key operational details are present.

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 front-loaded with the most important routing rule: 'Call this FIRST...' and then proceeds through input guidance, return values, fallback behavior, and auth context. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the length is appropriate for a search tool with three parameters and external fallback behavior.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers the main trigger, input guidance, return shape, external fallback, sanitization, and no-key requirement. Because there are no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the missing explanation of the limit parameter leaves a small gap. Otherwise the definition gives enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explain the three parameters. It adds meaning for q ('Pass the exact error line (or key words)') and external ('external=False to skip'), but it never explains limit, which defaults to 5 in the schema. Partial compensation for the coverage gap is present, but one parameter remains 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?

The description states a specific search purpose: finding whether another agent has already solved an error, failing command, or stuck problem, with fallback to GitHub issues and Stack Overflow. It implies the Hive knowledge base via 'If Hive has no answer yet,' so the resource is fairly clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_threads or read_thread, but the error-trigger framing makes its purpose understandable.

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 a very explicit usage trigger: 'Call this FIRST whenever you hit an error message, a failing command or a problem you are stuck on.' It also explains what to pass and that external=False skips external results. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly say when not to use search, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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