Search published articles

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

Beyond the readOnly annotation, the description details behavior: it is read-only, requires no API key (with IP rate-limit), filters combine with AND, returns summaries without bodies (directing to get_article for full text), and states that an empty array means no matches (not an error). This thoroughly discloses behavior and edge cases.

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 concise but information-dense, structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidance, and behavioral details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it well-organized and easy 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 the tool's nature (read-only search), the description covers essential context: what it returns (summaries without bodies), how to get full text (via get_article), authentication requirements, rate limiting, and error semantics (empty array). It also points to the appropriate alternative for unpublished content, making it fully self-contained.

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?

Each parameter has a clear schema description (e.g., q matches title and body with min 2 chars, tag is exact, limit defaults to 10 and ranges 1-20, author is by username). The tool description adds the crucial interaction that filters combine with AND, enhancing semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 explicitly states the tool searches published articles across all of Misar.Blog, including other creators' work, and clearly distinguishes it from list_my_articles by specifying it does not return drafts, scheduled, or private posts. This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 provides direct usage guidance ('Use this for discovery, research, and competitive reading'), explains when not to use it (for unpublished work, pointing to list_my_articles), and mentions rate-limiting for unauthenticated callers, giving clear context on when and how to invoke the tool.

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