find

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses exact-match behavior on the topic path, the no-fallback empty-result semantics, and the risk of vague keywords, which are non-obvious and useful.

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 front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by only behaviorally relevant details. Every sentence adds information (example, keyword guidance, empty-result meaning) without 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 read-style search with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the important invocation distinctions, result semantics, and fallback behavior. Nothing necessary for a correct call 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?

The schema has 0% property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It richly explains the keyword parameter and illustrates company/keyword with the Intuit/maternity example, though the limit parameter is left to inference from its name and default.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Find a company's posts about one keyword') and the examples make the exact scope unmistakable. It also contrasts with the generic 'main listing' by saying this returns keyword-specific threads.

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?

It clearly positions itself as the way to search Blind and gives concrete keyword-selection advice. It mentions the 'main listing' as an alternative that fails to surface old threads, but it does not name sibling tools or state explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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