search_ed_threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: the tool returns post summaries (not full bodies) and browse mode supports offset pagination, which is genuinely useful call-shaping context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb+resource, followed by the routing alternatives and return/pagination note. No filler.

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 still tells the agent the return shape ('post summaries') and the pagination mode, and it points to siblings for full content. Complete enough for a read-only search tool, though return fields and summary limits are only roughly characterized.

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% — every one of the 9 parameters is already documented with enums, defaults and limits. The description only echoes the offset/pagination behavior, which the schema already notes as ignored during search. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (browse/search) and resource (Ed posts), and explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings — read_ed_thread for full body/replies and list_ed_updates for new activity. An agent can route among the three without opening any schema.

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?

Names both alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: full content -> read_ed_thread, new activity only -> list_ed_updates. This is explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, not inferred context.

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