search_community

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, and open-world operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the forum source (builder.metamask.io) and the two distinct behavioral modes (search vs. fetch), though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs. With annotations covering core safety traits, this additional context earns a strong score.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and parameter guidance in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with two parameters, 100% schema coverage, and annotations covering key behavioral traits, the description provides sufficient context by clarifying the forum source and use cases. The lack of an output schema is a minor gap, but the description compensates by explaining what the tool returns (search results or full discussions). It's nearly complete for this complexity level.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (query and topic_id). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema by mentioning the two modes ('search or fetch'), but doesn't provide additional details like query syntax examples beyond what's in the schema. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Search or fetch posts') and target resource ('MetaMask Embedded Wallets community forum'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_docs by specifying the forum context. It provides concrete examples of use cases (troubleshooting, finding workarounds, checking known issues), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for troubleshooting real user issues, finding workarounds, and checking if an issue is known') and provides clear alternatives for the two parameter modes ('Provide a query to search or a topic_id to read the full discussion'). This gives the agent precise guidance on selecting between query-based search and topic fetching.

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