search_curations

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

With no annotations, the description covers the read-only search behavior and the nature of results (human-curated with explanations). However, it lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or what happens with empty queries.

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 concise, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear structure of definition, differentiation, and examples. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for a search tool. It covers purpose, usage guidance, and examples. Minor omissions like pagination limits completeness slightly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value through concrete query examples that illustrate usage, which goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 searches human-curated content recommendations, differentiating it from regular search engines. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the distinction from sibling tool 'get_curation' is implicit.

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 by contrasting with regular searches and giving multiple examples. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention the sibling as an alternative for single curations.

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