IndieStack

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe search behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: dataset characteristics (6,500+ IndieStack tools), filtering constraints ('Code tools only' for language/stars parameters), and critical behavioral notes ('Soft filter' for min_success_rate). Could improve by mentioning pagination limits or rate limiting.

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?

Length is substantial but justified by 15 undocumented parameters requiring manual documentation. Structure is well-organized: purpose → usage guidelines → value proposition → parameter reference. Every sentence earns its place; the prose paragraphs front-load critical workflow logic before the necessary parameter enumeration. Minor verbosity in value-proposition paragraph ('maintained by domain experts instead of nobody') prevents a 5.

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 15 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and presence of output schema, the description achieves completeness. It integrates with the sibling ecosystem (23 tools) by explicitly referencing list_categories() and contrasting with code generation workflows. The parameter documentation is exhaustive, and the output schema handles return value descriptions, making this sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (schema only has titles), the description compensates with a comprehensive 'Args:' section documenting all 15 parameters with examples, valid values, and format specifications (e.g., 'comma-separated tags', '0-100' range, specific enum values). It even references sibling tool list_categories() for valid category slugs, adding workflow context.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Search' and clear resource scope '6,500+ developer tools'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings via explicit workflow guidance: 'Query this tool BEFORE generating boilerplate' positions it against build_stack/generation tools, while referencing list_categories() for valid slugs clarifies its relationship to discovery 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Query this tool BEFORE generating boilerplate for common infrastructure' and enumerates specific domains (auth, payments, analytics, etc.). It also establishes clear alternatives (generating code from scratch) and quantifies the cost of not using it (30,000-80,000 tokens), creating strong decision boundaries.

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