search_stack_overflow

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

No annotations are present, so the description has full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It only implies a read-only search operation and gives no information about return format, network requirements, rate limits, failure modes, or side effects. This is a thin behavioral disclosure for a tool that likely makes an external API call.

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 seven words long and front-loads the action and resource. There is no filler or redundant content, so it earns a strong score on conciseness and structure.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is barely enough for basic invocation. It falls short on contextual completeness because it does not mention usage boundaries relative to the sibling tools or explain what should be done after the error query is given.

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?

The schema provides no description semantics for the one string parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by indicating that the query should be 'a specific error query,' but it does not explain the expected form, language, or example values.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Stack Overflow'), and purpose ('for a specific error query'), which makes the function clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling tools get_error_context and apply_code_patch by its stated behavior, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 like get_error_context or apply_code_patch. There are no prerequisites, favorites, exclusions, or next-step hints, leaving the usage context entirely to inference.

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