search_problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral semantics beyond that — AND-across-tags matching and the skip-solved exclusion behavior — but says nothing about result ordering or how the single required platform scopes the search.

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 short clauses, zero filler, with the core filtering semantics front-loaded before the list_platforms dependency and the exclusion behavior.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover read-only safety, so the remaining burden is small. However, the required 'platform' argument and the pagination limit are unaddressed anywhere, which leaves a gap for a tool an agent must call with a mandatory parameter.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It explains tags (conjunctive), level, and partially exclude_solved_by (skips that handle's solved problems), but is silent on the required 'platform' parameter and on limit behavior.

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 states the resource and filter semantics precisely: problems matching ALL given tags at a given level, with an explicit 'every tag' AND-constraint that the name alone doesn't convey. It lacks an explicit verb (search/list) and doesn't name any sibling, so it clarifies the operation without differentiating it from mistake-focused tools.

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?

It gives a prerequisite-style rule (tags and levels must be values from list_platforms), which usefully routes the agent to another tool first. It states the exclude_solved_by behavior but offers no guidance on when to prefer this over list_mistakes or mistake_patterns, and no exclusions.

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