Search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds that search is full-text and returns topics rather than posts, but does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or any limitations beyond the schema, so the added behavioral context is limited.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and immediately clarifying the result shape. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple with three well-documented parameters and safety annotations, so the description does not need to over-explain. It covers the essential purpose and return fields, which is especially valuable given the absence of an output schema. Minor gaps such as explicit result ordering or pagination notes are not critical because the schema fills in parameter behavior.

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 all three parameters are already documented with meaningful details such as 'Discourse search syntax supported' and 'max topics to return'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search of the forum', and clearly defines the output as matching topics with id, slug, and title. This distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools, which focus on specific resources or listings rather than search.

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 implies the tool is for searching the entire forum for topics, giving it a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like discourse_read_topic or discourse_list_categories, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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