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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping fact that results are 'visible public posts', which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'visible' entails, so contribution is modest.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaning.

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 search tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits how pagination via cursor and limit work, what the optional tag/language constraints mean in practice, and what the response shape looks like. An agent would need to guess about core usage details.

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 20% (only 'query' is described). The description compensates partially by mapping 'words' to query, 'topic' to tag, and 'language' to language, but it does not clarify the limit or cursor parameters, leaving their semantics unspecified.

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 verb and resource ('Search visible public posts') with clear search dimensions ('by words and optional topic or language'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browse or read, but the resource and filtering scope are specific enough for an agent to infer its purpose.

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 description implies when to use the tool (searching public posts by keywords/filters) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer an alternative like browse or read, and no exclusions. The usage context is inferable but not spelled out.

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