search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that results are summaries containing titles, excerpts, dates, and URLs rather than full articles, implying a read operation. However, it does not describe search scope, ordering, pagination, or whether the match is on full text or just titles.

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 conveys the action, resource, and return fields with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields and search intent. The main missing context is disambiguation from search_site and list_articles, but the tool itself can still be invoked correctly with the schema alone.

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 100%, so both query and limit are already documented with their constraints and defaults. The description only echoes 'keyword' and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific action ('Search') on a clear resource ('LearnOneTech articles') with a defining dimension ('by keyword'), so the purpose is immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_site, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 search_site, list_articles, or get_article. The description implies keyword-based search but never provides when-to-use/when-not-to-use context or names alternatives.

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