search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight and discloses critical side effects: makes a live network call consuming rate limits, appends a tamper-evident hash-chained entry to the audit log on success, is not read-only, and returns an error string rather than throwing an exception. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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?

Though lengthy, the description is well-structured: purpose/constraints, usage guidelines, side effects, parameter details, examples, and return format. Every sentence adds necessary information; there is no redundancy or filler, making the length appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 has 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema is referenced but not detailed, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisite credentials, platform-specific restrictions, failure modes (missing credentials, unsupported platform), side effects, return shape, and pagination. It is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 has 0% description coverage and only parameter titles, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's purpose, platform-specific applicability (e.g., subreddit for reddit only, channel for youtube only), defaults, caps (max_results capped at 100 for reddit and 50 for youtube), and even example calls. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Search Reddit or YouTube through its official, documented API... and return matching posts/videos as structured JSON.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing credential checks to auth_status, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('Call this whenever an agent needs recent or historical public content... for research, monitoring, or compliance review') and when-not-to-use (platforms other than reddit/youtube, credential checks). It names auth_status as the cheaper alternative for credential validation, satisfying the need for alternatives.

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