wattpad_search_stories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a string containing author, metrics, and tags, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors (e.g., rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination semantics), so it remains at a moderate level.

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 extremely concise, consisting of just two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose and then provides a clear return type and content. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given that the tool has a fully described schema, an output schema, and annotations indicating read-only behavior, the description covers the essential aspects: what it searches, the return format, and the data included. It does not elaborate on pagination usage or response_format nuances, but these are already captured in the schema. The description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, with minor gaps in explaining how to combine parameters like limit and offset.

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 100%, so all six parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the 'query' field's format (text or tag) or the meaning of 'language' IDs. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('historias publicas en Wattpad'), and clarifies the search criteria ('por texto o etiqueta'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like wattpad_get_story (which retrieves a specific story) and wattpad_list_my_works (which lists the user's own works), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 for searching public stories, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use wattpad_get_story instead). There are no exclusions or mentions of preferred scenarios, so the usage context is only implied by the verb and resource.

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