search_prospects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explains key behaviors: uses a shared SERP cache when fresh and falls back to Tavily, and returns specific fields (url, title, domain, position, Moz DA). It also discloses the target preference. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient and adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second adds target preferences, the third discloses cache behavior and return fields. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, target preferences, caching, and return fields. It is sufficiently complete to guide an agent, though it could mention the output format (e.g., array of objects) or the meaning of 'position' to be fully self-contained.

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 50% (keyword described, limit not). The description mentions 'for a keyword' but not the limit's effect. The limit parameter has default/minimum/maximum in the schema, which gives semantics, so the description doesn't need to over-explain. However, it doesn't add any behavioral context about limit (e.g., how it affects result count), leaving a minor gap.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'Find link-building prospect sites for a keyword.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing keyword-driven discovery and target-type preferences (roundup/list/resource-page vs direct competitor pages). This is more specific than generic sibling names like 'list_prospects'.

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?

It provides clear context: use for finding link-building prospects by keyword, with a preference for curated pages. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the purpose and expected output make the usage scenario evident. Lacks explicit exclusions or references to sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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