bbc_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions that the result is a 'bounded page' and that only metadata is returned, plus it excludes certain content types. However, it does not mention pagination limits, rate constraints, or any other behavioral traits. It adds some useful context but is not comprehensive.

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 two efficient sentences. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the restrictions are clearly stated without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple search tool with two parameters, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and what it excludes. It lacks explicit info about pagination bounds or output format, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely complete. The absence of an output schema is acceptable here.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('q' and 'page'). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as character limits or default values. It maintains the baseline of 3 without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('public BBC pages'), and explicitly notes it returns metadata for search results. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bbc_article (which retrieves a specific article) and bbc_headlines (which likely provides headlines) by focusing on search results.

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 some context about what the tool returns (metadata, links to landing pages) and what it excludes (streams, downloads, transcripts), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bbc_article or bbc_headlines. The exclusions hint at its niche, but there is no direct guidance on selection.

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