Search across issues

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals that the tool returns matching items with specific fields, uses a primary endpoint with a fallback, and is essentially a read operation. Missing explicit statement about read-only nature, but sufficiently transparent.

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?

Three sentences, concise and informative. First sentence states purpose and parameter options. Second sentence describes output. Third sentence provides implementation detail. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it searches, how parameters work, what is returned, and backend behavior. Could mention ordering, but overall sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each param. The description adds value by explaining that query and tag can be used individually or together, and that limit controls max items. This goes beyond the schema's individual param descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full-text + tag search across all news items' and specifies return fields (date, title, signal, snippet). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_article or list_by_tag by focusing on combined full-text and tag search.

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?

Description explains that query, tag, or both can be provided, and mentions fallback behavior ('backed by site search endpoint... falls back to flat index'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or list when not to use this tool.

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