search_articles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the search scope (title/description/tag/body) and that results are ranked, which are behavioral traits not captured in annotations. This is useful context beyond the structured data.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope. It avoids redundant details and includes essential information about result fields. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and high parameter schema coverage, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the search scope, ranking behavior, and result contents, and the limit parameter handles pagination implicitly. No missing crucial information for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (query, limit, category) having descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, but the schema already handles it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema fully documents parameters.

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 tool searches for a query across specific fields (title, description, tag, body) and returns ranked articles. The verb 'search' and resource 'articles' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_articles and get_article by focusing on query-based retrieval with ranking.

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 provides clear context: it searches across multiple fields and returns results ranked by relevance. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the search-focused wording implies it is for query-based discovery versus listing all articles. No misleading guidance, and the scope is clear enough for an agent.

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