search_stories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are scrubbed on egress (defense-in-depth), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain the extent of scrubbing or other behaviors like sorting or pagination.

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 consists of two short sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a security detail. However, it lacks information on return format, error handling, or what 'scrubbed' exactly entails, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (query, tags, limit) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it searches by keyword and/or tag, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 it searches war stories by keyword and/or tag, with a security note. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'get_story' (single story retrieval) and 'submit_story' (adding stories), as all three have distinct verbs and 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 this tool (searching by keyword/tag) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives. However, the sibling tool names imply the appropriate use cases, making it clear enough.

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