blog.search

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavior beyond those hints: it limits results to published posts and enumerates the returned fields, which substantially helps an agent anticipate the tool's output. It doesn't mention pagination or empty-result behavior, but these are minor for a simple search tool.

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 compact: two sentences covering what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is no redundant material, and the core scoping appears first.

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 one-parameter, read-only search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the search domain, the returned fields, and the intended use trigger. There is no critical missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema fully documents the query parameter with a description and three examples, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The tool description's topic examples are consistent but add no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action and resource: it searches Ritwik Joshi's published blog posts by topic. It also lists return contents (titles, summaries, URLs, publication dates), and the subject domain ('AI, robotics, agentic systems, or startups') clearly separates it from speaker and booking 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?

'Use when asked what Ritwik has written about...' gives an explicit trigger condition. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools, though the sibling names make those contrasts fairly clear.

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