search_stories

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses that the search is full-text, across all stories, and limited to titles in all languages. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or what fields are returned.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no filler words. 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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the search scope (titles, all languages) but omits details like result format or pagination. Sibling tools are not contextualized.

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% (both query and limit have descriptions). The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on query syntax or behavior.

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 uses the verb 'search' and specifies the resource 'CTC Monitor stories', indicating a full-text search. It mentions searching titles in all languages, which differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stories (likely ID-based retrieval). However, it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use search_stories versus other tools like get_stories or get_cluster. The description does not provide context for proper usage or alternatives.

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