sapiens_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: case-insensitive substring matching, optional column/format/status/tag filters, default limit 30, and max 100. It does not describe result ordering or return fields, but the stated purpose implies finding slug/id.

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 compact and front-loaded: search scope first, then optional filters, then defaults, then the concrete use case. Every sentence contributes new information and there is no filler or repeated schema text.

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 the 6-parameter schema with full descriptions and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers the key usage context well: what fields are searched, available filters, default limit, and the intended pre-edit workflow. The main gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not explicitly state the result shape beyond the implied slug/id lookup.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description summarizes the filters and defaults, but it largely restates what the schema already provides, such as allowed values for column, format, status, and the default limit. It adds modest value by bundling the optional filters together, but not enough to exceed the baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Busca substring case-insensitive em title/excerpt/tldr/slug/tags dos artigos.' It clearly identifies the search scope over article fields and differentiates itself from siblings by framing this as the tool to find existing article slug/id before editing, publishing, or deleting via sapiens_article.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use pra achar slug/id de artigo pré-existente antes de editar/publicar/deletar via sapiens_article.' This names the related tool sapiens_article and the workflow condition, making the choice between search and article operations clear.

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