search_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or default behavior when no query is provided. The statement is purely functional.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and direct.

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 has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns and how to use it effectively. It only states the search capability, not the response format, result limits, or that it searches metadata vs full text. Lacks comparison to sibling search tools.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level mapping of query to 'keywords', tags to 'tags', and blockchain to 'blockchain', but provides no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('stored web3 content') with the available filter dimensions (keywords, tags, blockchain). It is distinct from get_article and save_content, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling article_search, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like article_search or get_articles. The description implies usage for finding saved content but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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