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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: input must be a literal error string or code, it returns top matches from two sources, and GitHub issues include dates. This is solid coverage for a read-only query tool, though it never explicitly states the operation is read-only, and the exact result encoding is left vague.

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 appropriately sized at three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, including the negation and alternative. The only minor flaw is a slight redundancy where the final sentence ('Returns top matches from forum and github') repeats the sources already stated in the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so only at a high level: 'top matches from forum and github' and 'GitHub issues (each with its own date).' It does not describe what fields a match contains, how 'resolved fixes' are formatted, or how the limit parameter affects the combined result. This is adequate for deciding to call the tool, but incomplete for an agent that needs to process the response.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic nuance beyond the schema for error_text by clarifying that it must be a literal error string/code and by explaining why symptom descriptions are unsuitable, with a concrete counter-example and a pointer to semantic_search. The limit parameter is not mentioned in the description, but the schema already fully documents it.

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: 'Paste a Celestia ERROR MESSAGE, stack trace, or error code and get the most likely resolved fixes from blobpedia history.' It clearly names the output sources (forum threads and GitHub issues) and differentiates itself from the sibling semantic_search by contrasting its intended input. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool ('Needs a literal error string or code'), when not to use it ('do NOT use it for symptom descriptions with no error text'), provides a concrete counter-example ('my node won't sync'), and names the alternative tool ('use semantic_search for those'). It also scopes the tool to 'Celestia-specific' queries, giving unambiguous context.

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