search

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with a pagination consumption protocol ('consume next_offset before next_page, reset offset to 0') and a permission-dependent availability note, but says nothing about result shape or rate/limit behavior beyond that.

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?

Dense, telegraphic and front-loaded: purpose first, then the parameter/pagination facts in short clauses. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the offset/next_offset sentence is compressed enough to require a careful read.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers pagination and the highest-risk parameter formats. It omits what order, status and username actually do, leaving meaningful filtering behavior undocumented.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: date format for after/before, category as ID or slug with parent/child, Discourse syntax for keyword, 1-based page, offset-within-page, and max_chars as per-excerpt limit. limit, order, status and username remain undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search topics/posts'), and the resource scope is plainly broader than the single-item siblings (read_topic, read_post, get_user). It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search vs the sibling lookup tools, and no exclusions. 'Search availability depends on site permissions' is a caveat about feasibility, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer routing on its own.

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