bluesky_search_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Public data, sourced from the AT Protocol's public, credential-free AppView API', which clarifies authentication requirements and data publicness. While it does not mention rate limits or side effects, for a read-only search tool this adds meaningful context beyond the bare minimum.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Search Bluesky accounts'), and includes only essential information: what it returns, search fields, and data source. No redundant phrasing or unnecessary details.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the search fields, confirms public access, and states the return type (accounts). Missing details like pagination behavior or response format are partially covered by the schema's cursor parameter, so the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters (q, limit, cursor) adequately. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond mentioning that the query searches against display name, handle, and profile description. It stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Search Bluesky accounts' and specifies that it returns accounts matching a query against display name, handle, and profile description. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like bluesky_profile or bluesky_followers, which have different scopes.

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 usage: use when you need to find Bluesky accounts by text search. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, nor does it provide guidance on choosing this over other Bluesky-related tools. The usage is clear from context but not formally differentiated.

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