Buscar no Godly / Recent Design

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuine trait beyond structured data: the first call builds a local index (a few seconds) and subsequent calls are instant. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or what the result objects contain. Useful latency disclosure, but the safety and output profile remain undocumented.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then content types, then match fields, then examples, then the index-latency note. Dense but each sentence contributes information. Slight redundancy between the content-type list and the schema's feed enum, but not wasteful enough to penalize further.

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 6-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does most of the necessary work: scope, matched fields, filter examples, and first-call cost. Missing pieces are the return shape (how results are ordered/paged) and the explicit boundary against godly_browse, which keeps it from a 5.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it says matching happens against título, descrição, criador and tags, which explains what the required query actually searches. It also adds the retrieval tip that English terms perform better, a non-obvious semantic not present in the schema.

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 and resource ("Busca referências de design no Godly / Recent Design") and enumerates the covered content types (interfaces, microinterações, motion, branding, OG images, ícones, app screens). It also names the fields matched (título, descrição, criador, tags). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like godly_browse or godly_taxonomy, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Implied usage is clear from the content-type list and the query examples ('dark portfolio 3d', 'onboarding microinteraction'), and it hints that English terms retrieve better. There is no explicit when-to-use vs godly_browse/godly_get guidance and no statement of exclusions, so the choice among siblings is left to inference.

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