Search Posts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, making the read-only nature clear. The description adds little beyond that—no mention of rate limits, pagination behavior, or data scope. The query parameter notes provide some context on behavior but not enough to raise the score.

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—'Search for posts in esa.io'—which is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Despite long parameter descriptions, the main description wastes no words.

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 search tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the parameter descriptions cover query syntax and pagination. Missing explicit return format but overall adequate given the read-only annotation and schema coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The query parameter description adds significant value with detailed syntax rules, date handling, and advanced search operators, going well beyond the schema. Other parameters remain at schema level.

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 'Search for posts in esa.io', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling search-related tools like esa_search_help or esa_get_post, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 itself lacks usage guidance, but the parameter descriptions provide extensive context on when to use specific query syntax (e.g., avoiding GitHub date syntax) and how to handle relative dates. No explicit when-not or alternatives are given in the main description.

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