search_jokes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of implying the tool's behavior. 'Search' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation. It adds the specific scope of searching setup or punchline, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that no modifications occur or how results are returned, but the output schema covers return structure.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no fluff or repetition, every word adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the search scope and the schema covers the parameter. It doesn't specify behaviors like no results or multiple matches, but these are implied by a search operation and the output schema likely handles them. Minor gap: no explicit guidance on when not to use it versus sibling tools.

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?

The schema describes 'keyword' as a 'Case-insensitive search keyword,' which is adequate, but the tool description adds crucial meaning: the keyword is matched in the setup or punchline. This is not stated in the schema, so the description enriches parameter understanding.

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 function: 'Search jokes for a specific keyword in the setup or punchline.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (jokes), and even specifies the search scope (setup or punchline), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_random_joke and list_categories.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find jokes containing a specific keyword. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident given sibling tools have different functions (random joke, categories).

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