graze_discover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ("normalized items plus total/pages") and pagination ("page: pagination (1+)"), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining parameter notes are terse with zero filler. The telegraphic style is efficient though slightly clipped at points.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: purpose, platform lookup, pagination, filter names, and return contents. It stops short of explaining what "worthy/normalized" content means, valid sort or category vocabularies beyond one example, or any safety profile.

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, and it largely does: it explains page (1+), points platform at graze_platforms(), gives sort examples ("views", "recent"), and names category and min_views. It still leaves min_views and category semantics to inference, but the coverage is far better than 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 verb phrase "Search/discover worthy content matching `query`" states a concrete action and resource, so the tool's function is unambiguous. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings graze_trending or graze_feed, leaving the agent to guess which discovery surface applies.

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 notes that platform values come from graze_platforms(), which is a useful prerequisite, but it never states when to choose graze_discover over graze_trending or graze_feed. There are no exclusions or selection conditions, only parameter-level hints.

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