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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the search scope ('all posts') and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention pagination behavior, result ordering, or whether the search is case-insensitive or supports advanced syntax. The description is accurate but minimal.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the key verb and scope. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming verbose.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent might benefit from knowing what the response looks like or how results are ordered. The description is sufficient for basic invocation but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the context that the search is full-text and across all posts, which gives meaning to 'q', but it does not add details about the 'limit' parameter beyond the schema's default.

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 ('search') and resource ('all posts on the BSV social graph'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like peck_feed, peck_recent, and peck_trending. It lacks an explicit contrast with those siblings, but the scope is clear enough.

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 usage for full-text search across all posts, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like peck_feed or peck_trending, nor does it mention any exclusions or limitations.

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