harvest.search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that it returns deduplicated HarvestItem[], works without tokens, and is subject to public rate limits. It does not detail rate-limit specifics or clarify what 'sweep the 12-expert atlas' entails, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Two sentences deliver the action, scope, output type, and authentication posture with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the core call requirements: topic, optional tokens, output type, and deduplication. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain the structure of HarvestItem[], pagination, or the meaning of the '12-expert atlas,' leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool is sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful context about plain-English topics and token-free operation, but it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Search') and resources ('Hugging Face datasets and GitHub repos'), with a plain-English topic as input. It also mentions sweeping the '12-expert atlas' for breadth, which gives a sense of scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like harvest.expert.

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 this is the tool for broad, plain-English searches across multiple sources, especially when breadth is desired. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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