search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape as {keyword, count, has_next_page, view_options, posts}, explains that full defaults to false meaning compact, and lists important defaults like only_with_image true and only_with_video false. This provides a useful behavioral picture beyond a vague one-liner.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and required keyword, then provides a compact enumeration of optional parameters and the return shape. Every element carries information and there is no wasted text.

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 tool is complex: 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the required keyword, key defaults, date and near formats, and return fields, which is a solid foundation. Yet it omits the semantic distinctions between several similar parameters (city/cities, tag/tags) and does not explain what the compact vs full result shapes actually contain, leaving important context unresolved.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 14 parameters. It adds meaningful detail for during_date via allowed literal values, near via a format example, full via compact/ful distinction, and cities/tags as lists. However, semantics for city vs cities, tag vs tags, order_by_post_id, and hide_show_rooms are left to inference from parameter names.

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?

Description states a specific action and resource: 'Search haraj by keyword.' It is clear that this is keyword-based search on the Haraj platform, and it identifies the one required parameter. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_suggest or trending_keywords, so it earns 4 rather than 5.

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 gives required and optional parameters, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_suggest, fetch_feed, or trending_keywords. No explicit exclusions or decision rules are provided.

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