Quake Search (Scroll Compatibility)

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

No annotations provided, and the description offers zero behavioral details (e.g., side effects, permissions, limitations). The agent gets no insight beyond the alias indication.

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?

Extremely concise (one short sentence) but lacks substance. Every sentence should earn its place; this one provides minimal information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 9 parameters and an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the tool's overall behavior or how to use it effectively. It is incomplete for a tool with such complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so description need not add more. However, it could add context like parameter interplay or defaults, but missing that is acceptable.

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 only states it's a backward-compatible alias for 'quake_service_scroll', but does not explicitly define what the tool does. It relies on the user knowing the other tool's purpose, making it vague.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Mentioning it's an alias implies it's for backward compatibility, but no explicit usage context or alternatives are given.

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