search_opinions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that results are ranked by relevance and include snippets, and that the search spans all opinions. It does not address rate limits, authentication, or how broad/missed queries behave, but for a read-style search tool this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 only three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence contributes: scope, behavior/return format, and usage context.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema fully describes all parameters, the description provides sufficient context for a typical search use case. It could be more complete by distinguishing against sibling search tools, but the overall picture is clear enough.

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 input schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond stating the tool is full-text search, which is fine but not additive.

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 identifies the tool as a full-text search across all opinions returning relevance-ranked results with snippets. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_boolean or search_faceted, which likely perform similar full-text searches.

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 says to use this tool to find opinions on a topic, legal issue, or factual pattern, which gives an agent clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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