Search HLPlanet reviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the result types returned (reviews, comparisons, guides with links) and the topical domain 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?

Three compact sentences with zero redundancy: what it is, what it returns, and when to use it, in that order. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies the domain, the result types, and usage examples, which is everything an agent needs 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 100% with both parameters documented, including the limit range and query examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's example topics ('TMR 75%', 'stick drift') reinforce the query parameter's intent but add little beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and clearly identifies the resource (HLPlanet.com, a review site for Hall effect/TMR/rapid trigger keyboards, controllers, gear). It is easily separable from most siblings, but it does not resolve the potential overlap with compare_keyboards, since it advertises returning 'comparisons'.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: 'Use it to find a review of a specific keyboard or controller, or articles on a topic like "TMR 75%" or "stick drift"'. It does not name alternatives or state when another sibling (e.g. compare_keyboards, get_keyboard_dimensions) would be the better choice.

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