nmlp_search_qa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It indicates 'Returns top matching entries' and lists output fields, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The search action implies non-destructive behavior, but details are lacking.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters or usage scenarios. Overall, no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return structure (question, summary, URL). However, it lacks details on ordering, pagination, error handling, or how 'top matching' is determined. For a search tool with two parameters and siblings, more context would be helpful.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'by keyword', which relates to the 'query' parameter, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter (shown in schema with default 5, max 20). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'Search', specifies the resource 'NMLP's long-tail Q&A reference (85+ entries)', and describes the output format 'question, summary, and URL'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmlp_search_titles.

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 usage for keyword-based Q&A searching but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., nmlp_search_titles for book titles). No 'when not to use' or exclusions are provided.

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