search

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals one useful trait, recency-boosted ranking, but says nothing about search scope limits, time-window behavior, query semantics, or whether the operation is read-only. The agent gets only a partial picture.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler, and its most distinguishing trait ('recency-boosted') is front-loaded. It is not a complete specification, but as far as length and ordering go it is well formed.

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 tool with three parameters and no annotations, this description is thin. It leaves unclear what 'indexed feeds' means, how max_days works, and when search should be preferred over recent, trending, or digest. The output schema covers return shape, but invocation context is under-specified.

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%, and the description does not explain query, limit, or max_days beyond what the parameter names already suggest. 'Recency-boosted' only loosely hints at max_days, and the agent must infer how limit and max_days shape results. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a search operation over indexed feeds and adds a meaningful ranking trait ('recency-boosted'). This makes its purpose distinct from sibling list tools like recent or trending, though the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrasing implies use when an agent needs to search previously indexed feed content, but it never says when to choose this over recent, trending, or digest. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are named, so the guidance is only implicit.

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