search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful trait: 'Results identify live versus demo data,' which gives insight into output characteristics. However, it does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single behavioral detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description gives a minimal but functional picture. It covers the search subject and hints at result characteristics (live vs demo), but it does not describe the return structure (e.g., fields like title, date, URL), leaving some uncertainty about the output format.

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 hints at the 'days' parameter through 'recent' and the 'query' parameter through 'Search,' but it does not clarify how 'days' works or what constitutes a valid query. This leaves parameter semantics vague and largely dependent on inference.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search recent public mining news.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('mining news'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'fetch_article' by focusing on discovery rather than retrieval. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 implies usage context ('recent public mining news') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over 'fetch_article' or include exclusions. There is no guidance on alternatives or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer that search is for finding articles while fetch_article is for retrieving a specific one.

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