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

Adds traits beyond the annotations: requires login, results exclude comments and likers, and the semantic leg incurs a paid vector query that should not be looped. This meaningfully explains the otherwise-odd readOnlyHint=false. It does not delve into pagination or ranking behavior, so not a full 5.

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 【】-labelled sections (login/purpose, chain, caveats) front-load the login requirement and purpose, and each block carries distinct information. It is dense but every sentence earns its place, with only mild redundancy.

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 two-parameter search with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what is searched, what results omit (comments, likers), cost behavior, and the natural downstream workflow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% – both q and limit are documented in the schema. The description implies keyword+semantic matching but adds no syntax, format, or limit guidance beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (moments visible to me), and even enumerates the searched fields (body text, author nickname, attached card title). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_moments_feed, get_user_moments, and search_all without the agent opening any schema.

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?

Provides concrete example queries ('who's been talking about pet hardware prototyping', 'has anyone posted overseas-channel resources') and an explicit follow-up chain (get_moment → get_creator → start_conversation). It also warns not to loop-call it. It stops short of naming alternative siblings, so a 5 is not warranted.

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