Search Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral on top — no mention of pagination limits, result ordering, or that the search is team-scoped.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification for a tool with six parameters.

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?

There is no output schema, so return shape is outside the description's remit, and the schema documents parameters thoroughly. Still, a search tool with pagination, sorting, and team scoping offers nothing in the description about result caps or the required team context, leaving an agent to infer it all from the schema.

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%, including a very detailed query description covering date syntax, AND/OR behavior, and advanced operators, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The tool description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search for posts') in 'esa.io', so an agent knows this retrieves posts matching a query rather than fetching one post like esa_get_post. However, it offers no differentiation from nearby tools such as esa_search_help or esa_get_search_options_help, and no scope detail (team-scoped, paginated).

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives — it never says to reach for this tool over esa_get_post or esa_get_team_tags. All the practical search guidance lives in the query parameter's schema text, not in the tool description.

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