search_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return format (post numbers and subjects) but lacks important details such as search scope (e.g., whether it searches titles, content, or both), case sensitivity, pagination, or result limits. This is a minimal level of transparency for a search tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the purpose and output.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose and return values. However, it omits search scope and result behavior, which would be helpful given the large set of sibling tools. Overall, it's nearly complete for a lightweight search tool.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only that the search is 'by keyword', which loosely maps to the 'query' parameter, but does not elaborate on the network_id format or any parameter-specific constraints beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 action ('Search for posts') and resource ('in a Piazza course'), with a specific mechanism ('by keyword'). It also describes the return value ('matching posts with their numbers and subjects'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_feed or get_post.

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 use for keyword-based search in a course, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as filter_posts or get_feed. It provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the selection inference to the agent.

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