Search Discourse

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context about authentication requirements for private content ('requires authentication') and search operator capabilities, which goes beyond what annotations 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, the second provides practical usage guidance with examples. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides good context about search capabilities and authentication requirements. However, without an output schema, it doesn't describe the structure or format of search results, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions search operators like @username, #tag, category:name which aligns with the query parameter description but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Search') and resources ('Discourse site content including topics, posts, and users'), distinguishing it from siblings like discourse_filter_topics or discourse_list_tags which focus on specific content types. It provides a comprehensive scope that covers multiple content types in one search operation.

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 implicitly suggests using this tool for general content searches across multiple content types, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like discourse_filter_topics or discourse_list_user_posts. It provides search operator examples but no explicit guidance on tool selection criteria.

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