tapatalk_search_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is established. The description adds that it returns matching posts with content previews and parent topic info, which provides useful context about the output without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence containing the core action, resource, and key return details. No filler or redundant phrasing; it earns its place efficiently.

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 read-only search tool, the description adequately covers purpose and return values, and the schema and annotations handle parameter details and safety. It could mention pagination mechanics or search_id usage, but the schema already documents these, so the description remains sufficiently 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 descriptions cover all four parameters (query, page, per_page, search_id) at 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or formats. The description's 'keyword' loosely aligns with 'query' but adds no meaningful semantic beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'Search' and a clear resource 'individual posts by keyword', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tapatalk_search_topics. It also specifies the return content (content previews and parent topic info), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clearly states the scope (individual posts), providing a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tapatalk_search_topics or tapatalk_search_advanced, nor does it mention exclusions or when-not to use.

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