Search Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope behavior (searches one course or all active courses by default) and states that results are post summaries grouped by course, but return shape overlaps with the existing output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose and scope first, usage trigger immediately after, followed by the return granularity. No filler or restated name/title 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?

With an output schema handling return values and annotations handling safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: when to invoke, search scope, and result grouping. Only the undocumented 'limit' parameter remains a small gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies 'query' (keywords) and 'course' (single course vs. all active courses, matching the null default), but never mentions 'limit' or its pagination/result-count effect.

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) plus resource (posts) and scopes it precisely: keyword matching, constrained to one course or all active courses. The 'like the Piazza search box' analogy and keyword framing cleanly separate it from sibling listers such as list_posts and get_posts.

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 a concrete trigger ('use it before the user asks a new question, to find duplicates'), which is real actionable guidance. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, but the intended situation is unambiguous.

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