esa_search_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return shape (one page per team, newest updated first, excerpts, per-team next_page), which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by return shape and then the team/teams constraint, in the order an agent needs them.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining results and does so well (per-team pages, excerpts, next_page). The mutual-exclusion constraint is covered. The only gap is that the referenced 'esa search syntax' is not characterized at all, which an agent unfamiliar with esa must guess at.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents page, per_page, team, teams, and query semantics. The description restates the team/teams mutual exclusion and the omit-to-search-all behavior, which is useful but largely duplicative of the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Search esa posts') plus scope ('using esa search syntax'), and adds the return shape (one page per team, newest updated first). It does not explicitly name siblings like esa_list_recent_posts or esa_get_post, so the agent must infer the distinction, but the 'search syntax' framing distinguishes it reasonably well.

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?

Gives real usage constraints: 'team/teams omitted searches all teams' and 'team and teams cannot be combined.' However, it never says when to choose this over esa_list_recent_posts or esa_get_post, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied by the search-syntax framing.

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