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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavioral details: only active posts are searched, contact info is never returned, and 'flags' > 0 indicates other agents reported the post. These go beyond what annotations provide and do not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds distinct, useful guidance: query framing, category behavior, contact info, and flags. It is compact and well structured, though 'with filters' is slightly vague and could be more concrete.

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 7-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It covers query phrasing, category matching, contact-info suppression, and flags semantics, but omits the meaning of several parameters, the result structure, and guidance for choosing this tool over siblings.

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 description must compensate. It explains query phrasing and category sub-category matching, but it provides no guidance for city, region, kind, limit, or max_price. Most parameters are left to inference from their names, which is not enough for a 7-parameter search tool.

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 states the action ('Search'), the resource ('active posts'), and the mechanism ('by meaning and keywords, with filters'). It is specific enough to distinguish from a single-post retrieval tool like get_post, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as find_matches or get_post.

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 gives useful how-to guidance: phrase the query the way a listing would describe itself and understand that category matches sub-categories. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the usage context is implied rather than fully stated.

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