bsky_search_local_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching a local database for Japanese posts, which implies read-only behavior and language filtering, but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'local DB' entails. The description adds some context but is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter guidance, behavioral details, and sibling differentiation. For a search tool with undocumented parameters, this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It doesn't mention any parameters or their semantics. With 2 parameters (keyword and limit) and no schema descriptions, the description fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving key usage details unclear.

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's purpose: searching Japanese posts stored in a local database. It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'Japanese posts', but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bsky_search_posts' which might search different scopes or languages. The description is specific but lacks sibling 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'bsky_search_posts' or other search-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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