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

The description discloses that it returns top matching entries with specific fields (question, summary, URL), but lacks details on ordering, no-result behavior, or matching algorithm. With no annotations, the description provides basic but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 a single concise sentence, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations, it is adequate though not notably efficient. It could benefit from a bit more detail 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?

The description fails to cover important aspects like how matching works, behavior on no results, or any nuances of the parameters. Given no output schema or annotations, the description leaves the agent with significant informational gaps for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for parameter meanings. It only implies the 'query' parameter via 'by keyword' and completely ignores the 'limit' parameter, leaving its purpose and constraints unexplained.

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 clearly specifies searching NMLP's long-tail Q&A reference by keyword and returns top matching entries with question, summary, and URL. It distinctly identifies the resource and action, setting it apart from sibling tools like nmlp_search_titles which likely search different content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The context implies it is for Q&A searches, but no when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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