search_articles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return scope (titles and snippets, not full bodies) and, via force_refresh, reveals cache behavior. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but for a read-only search tool the key behaviors are covered.

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 summary is two focused sentences that lead with the core action and return limitation. The Args block is compact and each line adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, so no words are wasted.

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?

All parameters, the return shape, and caching behavior are covered, and an output schema exists to carry return-value details. It is slightly incomplete in routing guidance—there is no explicit pointer to get_article for full bodies—but otherwise an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, yet the description's Args section explains all five parameters: subdomain as Help Center hostname, query as the search string, locale as an optional filter, limit with default 10, and force_refresh as a cache bypass. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search articles by keyword,' and immediately clarifies that only titles and snippets are returned, not full bodies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_articles and get_article, which handle listing and full retrieval.

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 keyword-search framing implies the tool should be used when the goal is full-text search rather than navigation, listing, or retrieval. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names and the 'no full bodies' caveat.

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