ariel_search_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds zero behavioral context beyond those annotations: no mention of pagination behavior, search-index delay, the dual json/digest output modes, or rate limits. The four-word description is essentially a restatement of the tool name and contributes nothing the schema and annotations do not already provide.

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 maximally brief with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, for a tool with 9 parameters, a digest output mode, and a large sibling family, a single four-word sentence is under-sized rather than appropriately sized; the brevity is achieved by omitting, not compressing, useful information.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete: it does not explain the json/digest format distinction, pagination, filter semantics, or how search results differ from feed/timeline/list retrieval. An agent relying solely on this description plus schema would still be uncertain about return shape and tool selection.

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 fully documents all 9 parameters (query, lang, sort, limit, since, until, author, cursor, format) with types, enums, and ranges. Per the baseline rule, the description need not repeat parameter info, and it does not add any meaning beyond the schema—no departure from baseline.

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 for posts on Bluesky.' The verb 'search' conveys query-based lookup, which visually distinguishes it from sibling get/fetch tools (ariel_get_timeline, ariel_get_feed, ariel_get_author_feed). However, it does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling search alternative (ariel_search_users) or other post-retrieval tools, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 37 siblings—including ariel_search_users, ariel_get_posts, ariel_get_feed, and ariel_get_timeline—an agent is given no decision criteria (e.g., query-based keyword search vs. fetching a feed vs. retrieving known posts). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection context is offered.

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