search_problems

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'pagination support' which is useful context, but doesn't describe the return format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does and what parameters it accepts.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, and behavioral characteristics that would be important for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description mentions the filter criteria (categories, tags, difficulty, keywords) and pagination, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the 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's purpose: 'Searches for LeetCode problems based on multiple filter criteria including categories, tags, difficulty levels, and keywords, with pagination support.' This specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('LeetCode problems'), and scope ('multiple filter criteria'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'list_problem_solutions' or 'get_problem'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_problem' (for single problem retrieval) or 'list_problem_solutions' (for solutions). It mentions filter criteria but doesn't specify use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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