search_by_topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only says 'Search for posts by topic tags.' It does not mention default limit, ordering, case sensitivity, pagination, or any side effects or prerequisites. This is a minimal disclosure for a search operation.

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, compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without padding, which is exactly what conciseness requires.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more contextual details like result format, default limits, or relationship to other search tools. It doesn't, leaving the agent with only a terse statement that is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool without additional context.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (limit, topics, search_type), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'topic tags' aligns with the 'topics' parameter but adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Search'), a resource ('posts'), and a scope ('by topic tags'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_by_hashtags or search_posts, making the tool's purpose immediately apparent.

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. Sibling tools such as search_posts and search_by_hashtags exist, but the description does not explain trade-offs or context for choosing this one, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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