search_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does it thoroughly. It discloses the raw/uncleaned nature of results, AND-semantics for tags, provider-specific tag caps, error behavior on exceeding limits, and the structure of returned posts (tag_string, artist/character/copyright splits, optional URLs).

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 well-organized with a clear opening sentence and bulleted details. Every section adds value: search semantics, provider caps, autocomplete fallback, and post structure. Despite its length, it avoids redundancy and is appropriately scoped for a complex tool.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and enough output structure to set expectations. It lacks details about pagination or what happens with invalid tags, but overall it gives a solid mental model for invoking and interpreting results.

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 0%, so the description compensates for the most critical parameters: tags (syntax, AND behavior, single-tag preference, caps), provider (caps listed), and the boolean include_preview/include_file_url (via 'optionally preview/file URLs'). It does not explain page, limit, order, rating, or random_seed, but those are relatively self-explanatory with defaults and enums 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 searches a booru and returns the raw post list, with an explicit contrast to search_prompts. It distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'no cleaning' and by naming sibling tools like autocomplete_tags for concept resolution.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this tool when you want to inspect the original tags before deciding how to process them.' It also gives alternative tool guidance ('call autocomplete_tags first') and explains multi-tag limits per provider, including env var workarounds.

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