search_problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether matching is exact or substring, whether it paginates, or what happens when no problem matches. Only the bare search behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and both accepted query forms are stated immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and for a one-parameter search tool the description covers the essentials. It is slightly thin on matching semantics and no-result behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning by stating the query accepts a title or a LeetCode ID, but it never clarifies whether the query is exact-match, fuzzy, or case-sensitive, nor what happens with ambiguous input.

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?

States a specific verb (search) plus the resource (LeetCode problems) and the two lookup keys (title or LeetCode ID). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from the sibling search_interview_memory, which is also a search tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_interview_memory or get_problem_stats. The agent must infer that this is the lookup step before add_problem or get_problem_stats.

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