devto_search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the query searches title and description and that it returns a list, which are helpful behavioral details. However, it does not mention any rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. Since it is a read-only search, the lack of side-effect disclosure is less critical, but the description could be richer.

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 well-structured with an Args/Returns format, and every sentence adds information. It front-loads the purpose and keeps parameter details succinct. No redundant text, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting the 'Returns' line since an output schema exists.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what each parameter does, the required nature of 'query', and the return type. It lacks details on error handling or pagination behavior beyond the per_page parameter, but given the simplicity of the tool and the output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 does so excellently: it explains the meaning of 'query' (searches title and description), gives examples for 'tag' (e.g., 'python', 'docker'), and specifies the valid range and default for 'per_page' (1-20, default 10). This adds substantial value beyond the raw 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 states a specific action (search) on DEV.to articles with optional query and tag filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings like devto_list_articles by emphasizing the search aspect, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb 'Search' and resource 'DEV.to articles' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like devto_list_articles or devto_get_latest_articles. An agent could confuse it with listing all articles. The description does not mention that this is for keyword/tag-based search and not for general listing, nor does it suggest when one might prefer list_articles.

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