search_collective_pages

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely useful trait the annotations cannot convey: the search index is background-updated, so very recent pages may be missing. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the freshness caveat and the alternative tool, then compact Args/Returns blocks. Every sentence is useful; the Returns block is mild redundancy given an output schema exists.

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?

Covers purpose, both parameters, freshness behavior, and the title-lookup alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, making the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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 carry the load, and it documents both parameters: collective_id as the numeric collective ID and query as the words to look for. It conveys intent beyond the bare types, though it adds no format or matching-syntax detail.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('text of a collective's pages'), and explicitly contrasts with get_collective_pages, which lists titles instead. An agent can distinguish it from search_files and list_recent_collective_pages without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear use context (find pages by text content) and routes the title-lookup case to get_collective_pages. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the alternative is named, which is more than most siblings provide.

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