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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses full-text semantics but nothing about sorting, pagination behavior, result shape, or whether search covers comments or only post bodies.

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 four-word sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. Brevity here crosses into under-specification rather than being over-long, but structurally it is clean.

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 zero annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves query syntax, result count semantics, ranking, and filtering behavior entirely undocumented. An agent cannot call this confidently beyond the trivial case.

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 schema documents nothing beyond names and types. The description does not explain what 'q' accepts (query syntax, operators, phrases) or what 'limit' bounds. Only the default of 25 is inferable from the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: full-text search over posts. Clear what it does, though it doesn't differentiate from siblings like hiveposts_feed or hiveposts_open_questions, nor does it clarify scope (all posts vs. user's posts).

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from this description alone whether hiveposts_search is preferred over hiveposts_feed or hiveposts_library for surfacing posts.

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