search_agoras

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose key behavioral traits: it costs 1 pull (a rate-limit/cost) and returns activity stats. This implies a read-only search operation, though it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or any prerequisites. The cost disclosure adds valuable transparency beyond the schema.

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 clean sentences that are front-loaded: first states the purpose, then the value-add (activity stats), then the cost. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks detail on parameter behavior (sort, limit) and return structure beyond 'activity stats'. With no output schema and low parameter coverage, more explanation would be helpful for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially regarding what happens with no query or how results are ordered.

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?

Only the query parameter has a schema description (with an example), leaving sort and limit with no explanation. The tool description adds no information about sort or limit, so with 33% schema coverage the description fails to compensate. The enum and min/max give some hints, but the description should have clarified these.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds agoras (communities) by name, and differentiates itself by mentioning it returns activity stats to help choose an active community. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_posts or read_thread.

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 when to use it (when you need to find a community and assess its activity), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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