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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious purpose. It does not mention default sorting, result shape, pagination, or rate limits; the only substantive behavioral detail (text_only mode) lives in the schema, not the tool description.

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 that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded for a search tool.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description is terse but the schema fills in parameter semantics. It does not outline the default return structure or search scope, though the text_only parameter implies the full result contains fields like author, subreddit, date, URL, and body preview.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, but each parameter already has a clear schema description, including defaults and the detailed text_only behavior.

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 'Search Reddit for posts matching a query' names a specific action and resource, clearly indicating a search over posts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like reddit-get-post or reddit-get-user-posts, so it stops short of a 5.

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 main description gives no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the text_only parameter description implies a workflow ('Use for a cheap first pass to pick posts worth fetching with reddit-get-post'), offering implied usage context without explicit exclusions.

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