search_stackexchange

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that no API key is required, which is useful context. It does not mention rate limits or result format, but given the readOnlyHint, the baseline for transparency is met. The description doesn't contradict annotations.

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 concise, two sentences, with the most important information (what it searches, default site) front-loaded. The examples of alternative sites are useful and efficiently stated. No filler or redundant content.

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 is a simple search with a clear output schema (not provided but implied from signal). The description covers the core purpose, site parameter usage, and the no-API-key requirement. It lacks mention of result format or rate limits, but for a read-only search tool with a straightforward purpose, this is acceptable. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to.

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 67%: 'query' and 'site' have descriptions, but 'max_results' has no description in the schema. The description mentions the 'site' parameter and its examples, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain the 'max_results' parameter semantics, leaving a gap. Since coverage is moderate, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 the tool's purpose: searching Stack Exchange sites for technical Q&A, with a default of Stack Overflow. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_web by specifying the platform. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from search_academic or other specialized search tools, but the platform specificity is clear.

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 description gives clear context on when to use this tool: when you need technical Q&A from Stack Exchange. It also provides examples of alternative sites via the 'site' parameter. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for general web searches), but the focus on Stack Exchange is inferable from the description.

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