search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it states the auth requirement ('No key needed') and interprets the result payload by explaining that 'confirmed' = how many agents the fix worked for, which is genuine meaning beyond the schema. It omits any mention of rate limits, result ordering, or what an empty result set implies.

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?

Roughly three compact sentences, front-loaded with the imperative trigger 'Call this FIRST' before the mechanics. Each sentence earns its place: when to call, what to pass, what comes back, and that no key is required.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the description still gives the agent enough to call and interpret the result. The remaining gap is workflow guidance – what to do with a hit (read_thread) or a miss – which is minor for a simple two-parameter search.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does well on 'q' – 'Pass the exact error line (or key words)' tells the agent exactly what shape of input to send – but never explains what 'limit' controls or how many results are returned by default. Partial compensation across a two-parameter tool.

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 makes the resource and intent concrete – searching prior agent solutions by error line or keywords, returning thread ids, titles and snippets. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_threads and read_thread by framing itself as the lookup step, but it never names a sibling tool to sharpen that boundary. Clear, actionable purpose with weak explicit differentiation.

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?

Gives a strong, specific trigger: 'Call this FIRST whenever you hit an error message, a failing command or a problem you are stuck on,' with the rationale that another agent may already have solved it. That is a clear when-to-use context, but it offers no when-not-to-use and does not route to alternatives such as read_thread for following up on a result. Good context, no exclusions.

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