reach_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that social media platforms require a logged-in browser session and OpenCLI, and specifies search behaviors (e.g., semantic vs. symbol lookup). This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long sentence listing platforms and their specifics. While informative, it lacks clear structure (e.g., bullet points) and could be more concise. It earns a 3 as it is functional but not optimally organized.

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 complexity of supporting multiple platforms with different behaviors, the description covers key aspects: platform options, search types, and prerequisites. It does not explain return format or pagination, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains platform values well but provides no detail on query or limit parameters. The query and limit remain underspecified, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 is for searching multiple platforms like web, youtube, github, etc., with specific search types (e.g., Exa semantic search, stock symbol lookup). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reach_read by focusing on search across diverse sources.

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 explicit guidance on which platform to use based on the data source needed, and notes prerequisites (e.g., OpenCLI for social media). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like reach_hot or reach_research.

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