search_posthog_insights

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

With no annotations available, the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It only mentions searching by name but omits details like pagination, result limits, case sensitivity, or output format. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for reliable use.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of a single-purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. It avoids redundancy, though a structured list would improve readability slightly.

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 simple search function with two parameters, the description provides the essential inputs and purpose. However, it lacks context on output structure, expected behavior when no results are found, and any constraints, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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?

The description compensates for the schema's lack of property descriptions by explaining project_id as an integer with an example and search as a filter by name. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, though more specifics (e.g., supported wildcards) could enhance clarity.

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 searches for PostHog insights by name. This is a specific action on a specific resource. While it is distinguishable from siblings like list_posthog_insights (which lists all) and get_posthog_insight_details (which gets details of one), it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this search tool versus listing all insights or retrieving details. There is no indication of prerequisites or limitations, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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