blockrun_exa

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cost per call ($0.012 for search/answer, $0.002 per URL for contents), supported categories for search, and endpoint-specific body shapes. It does not contradict annotations.

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 well-structured: a purpose sentence, followed by a bulleted list of endpoints with body shapes and costs, then categories and a reference to further details. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (4 endpoints, no output schema) and the richness of annotations and input schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks details on return values, error handling, or pagination. It references the 'exa-research' skill for full shapes, which may not be directly accessible to the agent, leaving a gap.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description enhances understanding by providing example body shapes for each endpoint and clarifying that body is required for all endpoints, and agent_id is for budget tracking. This adds meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 it is a neural web search via Exa, understands meaning, and is great for research. It lists four specific endpoints (search, answer, contents, find-similar) with distinct purposes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like blockrun_search which likely offers a different search capability.

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 implies it is for research but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blockrun_search. No direct comparison or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the 'great for research' hint.

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