query_by_topic

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral detail by stating that the tool returns entry IDs with labels, but it does not discuss pagination, ordering, or limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the output summary. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values do not need description. However, with zero schema coverage on parameters and no mention of include_subtopics, the description is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to set that flag.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies that the search is over resume entries with a topic, which partially covers 'topic', but it says nothing about 'include_subtopics' or how the default true affects results.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Find resume entries annotated with a topic' and notes the output shape ('Returns entry IDs with labels'). This is clear and distinct from generic tools, though it does not explicitly compare against siblings like query_work or get_skill_profile.

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 direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as query_work or get_entry_context. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'annotated with a topic', and no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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