Search articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals case-insensitive matching, multiple-word matching semantics, and metadata-only performance characteristics. Though it omits details like pagination or result format, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary function. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second details matching semantics, the third clarifies multi-word behavior, and the last two provide performance and alternative navigation. No filler or redundancy.

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 search tool without annotations or output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers scope, matching rules, performance, and redirects to appropriate sibling tools. It lacks explicit mention of result structure or pagination, but given the simplicity and the presence of get_article for content, it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the query performs case-insensitive matching against title, slug, and tags, and that multiple words must all match. This enriches the meaning of the 'query' parameter beyond its schema description, while world_id and type are already well-specified 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Find articles in a world by keyword' with specificity on matching fields (title, slug, tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming search_content for body text and get_article for reading content, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance: it notes the tool is 'Fast (metadata only)' and directs users to 'search_content instead' for body text, and to 'get_article on a result id' for content. This clearly states when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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