search_forum

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond annotations: rate-limiting with a recommended wait, silent failure when using a wrong node ID (returns 0 rows), and the truncated flag indicating incomplete results. These details are critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the read-only search operation.

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 well-structured but somewhat verbose, containing multiple sentences that each provide distinct value. It could be slightly more concise by grouping related guidelines, but it remains clear and front-loaded with essential information. No wasted sentences.

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's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers rate-limit handling, the truncated field in results, and common pitfalls like wrong node IDs. It also provides best practices for keyword usage and ordering. No output schema exists, so the description's coverage of result behavior compensates well.

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 high schema coverage (92%), the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. For example, it explains the AND-matching logic for keywords, the behavior of nodes with includeChildNodes, and the semantics of order values ('date' for latest, 'replies' for most-discussed). It also clarifies when to omit parameters (e.g., order for relevance). This adds value for agent comprehension.

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 clearly states 'Full-text search glp1forum.com with granular XenForo filters', specifying the domain and type of search. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_thread or list_forums, which are for retrieval or listing, not full-text search.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it explains AND-matching for keywords, the need for includeChildNodes when searching category nodes, rate-limit retry behavior, and handling truncated results. It also advises on using the order parameter for different query types, such as 'date' for current topics and 'replies' for consensus. While it doesn't explicitly exclude sibling tools, the context is sufficient given their distinct purposes.

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