Search Poems

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 covered. The description adds only that advanced query syntax is supported, which is a capability note rather than behavioral context (no pagination, result-limit, or scoping disclosure) — adequate but thin against the lower bar set by annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Short, but nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is functional but omits result shape/pagination behavior tied to the "page" parameter and any note that empty input returns everything. Complete enough to call, not complete enough to set expectations.

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%, and the keyword parameter's schema entry is extremely detailed (date operators, boolean logic, grouping, empty-string behavior), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ("Searches for poems") and names the target system (pplog), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings get-poem or create-poem, leaving the retrieve-vs-create-vs-search distinction to the names alone.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when a search is preferable to get-poem, and no note about the no-argument/empty-keyword behavior. "Advanced query syntax support" hints at capability but not at selection context.

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