search_jina_blog

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what content is searched (Jina blog/news), it doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether results are paginated, what format they return, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage. The first sentence establishes what the tool searches and where, while the second provides use cases. There's minimal redundancy, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by combining some elements.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral transparency. The description covers what content is searched and use cases, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe result format, pagination, or other behavioral aspects to be more complete.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions general search terms but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Jina AI news and blog posts at a specific URL (jina.ai/news), listing specific content types (articles about AI, machine learning, neural search, embeddings, Jina products) and use cases (official documentation, tutorials, product announcements, technical deep-dives). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_arxiv or search_web by specifying the Jina-specific source and content focus.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to find Jina-specific content including documentation, tutorials, announcements, and technical articles. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the Jina focus implicitly distinguishes it from general web search siblings like search_web.

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