Search Are.na

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one prerequisite (premium subscription) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, limitations, or authentication needs. Search implies read-only, but that is not explicit.

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 short and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose: stating the action and a key requirement. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential usage and parameter details, though the structure itself is clear.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not convey what is searchable, how results are structured, or how to use the optional parameter, making it inadequate for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter. It fails to explain what 'query' should contain or how 'per' controls pagination/results. The schema only provides type and numeric bounds, which is insufficient.

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 phrase 'Full-text search' clearly identifies the action and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like arena_get_channel or arena_list_my_channels. However, it doesn't specify the exact scope of what is being searched (e.g., blocks, channels, users), which leaves some ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a subscription requirement, but does not explain use cases, exclusions, or trade-offs compared to other arena_* tools.

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