tapatalk_search_advanced

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety characteristics. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default result type, or limitations. It does not add value beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The first sentence efficiently lists filters, but the second sentence ('More powerful than basic search') is a vague comparative claim that doesn't add concrete information and could be omitted.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify what the tool returns (topics vs posts), how pagination works, or any other behavioral expectations. An agent would have to rely heavily on parameter descriptions, but the overall search result behavior remains ambiguous.

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% for all 11 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level summary of some filter categories (keywords, user, forum, date range, title-only) but omits others like pagination (page, per_page, search_id) and thread filtering. This summary adds limited value over the schema.

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 an advanced search with multiple filters (keywords, user, forum, date range, title-only), distinguishing it from basic search. However, it doesn't explicitly state whether it searches topics or posts (though the schema's show_posts parameter implies topics by default), and it doesn't name a specific sibling tool for comparison.

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 implies this tool is for advanced searches requiring multiple filters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over simpler alternatives like tapatalk_search_topics or tapatalk_search_posts. The phrase 'More powerful than basic search' gives a comparative hint but lacks concrete exclusions or alternatives.

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