Search hints

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states cache behavior (local, 24h TTL), the substring matching semantics (case/diacritic insensitive), ranking (title over content), and that pagination/results match list_hints. It does not mention error conditions, rate limits, or potential staleness beyond TTL, but for a read-only search tool these omissions are minor given the depth of behavior described.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by matching specifics, ranking, result shape, and cache refresh guidance. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundancy or verbose phrasing.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core contract: scope, matching behavior, ranking, result shape, cache TTL, and how to force an update. It omits error handling, network behavior, or any edge-case notes, but the reference to list_hints for result shape and pagination covers the return structure adequately. It is nearly complete, though a note on what happens when the cache is unavailable would push it to 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 100% with all three parameters (query, page, per_page) described, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema: it specifies that query performs substring matching over titles, excerpts, and full content, is case/diacritic insensitive, and that title matches rank first. It also ties pagination to list_hints, giving agents a clear contract for page and per_page behavior. This enrichment justifies one point above baseline.

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 (search) with a precise resource (cached uxhints.com catalog) and detailed behaviors: case-insensitive, diacritic-insensitive substring matching over titles, excerpts, and full content. It also distinguishes itself from list_hints by referencing the same result shape and pagination, and from refresh_hint_catalog by mentioning the cache update mechanism. This clarity leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 use for searching rather than listing, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer search_hints over list_hints, get_hint, or random_hint. It does include a specific usage note for refreshing the catalog (call refresh_hint_catalog), but lacks a broader when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Alternative selection is largely left to inference from the name and the reference to list_hints.

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