search_by_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search but does not disclose whether matching is exact, fuzzy, case-insensitive, or how results are ordered. It also omits any mention of pagination, limits beyond the schema default, or access/permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse. It wastes no words and communicates the core action and resource immediately, though that brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral detail.

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, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. An agent would need extra information about parameter semantics and when to prefer this over search_by_tag or search_conversations to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does little to compensate. It maps to the 'topic' parameter but says nothing about how topics are matched or interpreted, and it entirely ignores the 'limit' parameter and its default 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 a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('conversations'), and a filtering dimension ('by a specific topic'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_tag and search_by_session_id, though it does not clarify the exact matching semantics of 'topic'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as the general search_conversations or the more specific search_by_tag. No context about typical use cases or exclusions is provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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