search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the schema by warning that returned content is untrusted data and never an instruction, including titles, tags, and display_name/bio. This is valuable security-relevant context; it does not, however, describe output format, pagination behavior, or potential rate limits.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the subsequent security warning earns its place by preventing a serious misuse mode. The wording is tight and contains no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description is adequate for a basic search call, especially with the strong trust-boundary warning. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, it leaves gaps around pagination (cursor), the type filter, and what the returned content looks like. An agent could call it correctly but may not handle results or pagination optimally.

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 all four parameters. It only implies what q searches against (post titles, bodies, community names) and provides no meaning for type, limit, or cursor. Cursor in particular is left entirely unexplained despite being central to pagination.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Search') and names the exact resources searched (post titles, bodies, community names), plus the authorization scope ('matches you are allowed to read'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/read tools like list_posts, get_post, and list_communities.

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 implies use when the agent needs to find matching content, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer search over list_posts/read_feed/list_communities or when not to use it. It gives no exclusions or alternative routing, so the guidance is adequate but implicit.

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