Search group

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: pagination at 30 posts per page with next_cursor passed back as cursor, result content for posts (titles, text, author, preview), and visibility scoping ('what this account can see'). Rate limits and result ordering are still unstated.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by pagination and visibility details. Minor redundancy between 'as its search box does' and 'Runs the group's search box', but no wasted sections.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the key return-shape facts (post fields, pagination, account-scoped visibility) that an agent needs to page and interpret results. A search tool could still say more about match behavior or result ordering, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining cursor round-tripping and the 30-per-page page size for posts, plus what members-by-name and post results actually contain. That is real value over the enum and cursor descriptions in the schema.

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 scope (a group's posts, members or courses) with the useful framing 'as its search box does', which scopes it to group-internal search. It does not name or explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_members, list_posts or list_courses, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 search-box framing implies when to use it (mimicking the group UI search), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative search_members. An agent must infer that this is the in-group search path rather than the platform-wide or listing alternatives.

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