search_examples

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

The description discloses filtering capabilities and default values, but does not clarify if the operation is read-only or if there are any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on response structure (though output schema exists) and potential limitations.

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-structured with a clear purpose, bullet points for options, and usage examples. It is somewhat verbose but informative. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 description adequately covers content_type and time_range but omits explanation for the 'reasoning' parameter, which is required and may be unclear. Additionally, it does not describe the return value or how the tool handles edge cases, despite having an output schema. Given the presence of 5 parameters and moderate complexity, it is partially complete.

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 description explains the semantics of content_type and time_range parameters with enumerations and defaults, which adds value beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'reasoning' parameter (required) or 'max_results', leaving ambiguity. With 0% schema description coverage, more compensation is expected, but partial coverage is provided.

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 purpose: 'Search for code examples, tutorials, and technical articles.' The verb 'search' and resource 'examples' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like web_search and search_images by focusing on code and learning resources.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Perfect for learning new APIs, finding usage patterns, or discovering how others solve specific technical problems.' It also explains the two filtering dimensions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to alternative tools.

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