search_community

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what sources are searched and the type of content found, but it does not disclose expected result format, potential latency, reliability of community content, or whether network access is required. This is adequate for a read-only search but lacks some behavioral context.

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 sentences and immediately states the action and key purpose. It lists sources concisely and then provides the use case. No wasted words or redundancy with the schema or title.

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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names sources, explains the intended use, and differentiates from siblings. It does not mention the return value structure, but for a search tool this may be less critical. It also lacks caveats about community-generated content quality, but overall it covers the essential context.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—'query' and 'includeForums' are self-explanatory in the schema. There is no extra guidance on how to craft effective queries or when to enable forums.

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 action (search), the resource (trusted Protheus community sources), and enumerates specific sources (Terminal de Informação, BlackTDN, etc.). It also clarifies the purpose (find practical examples, workarounds, real-world experiences), which distinguishes it from sibling search_protheus_docs (docs) and search_release_notes (release notes).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to find practical examples, workarounds, and real-world experiences,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the use-case phrasing conveys the intended scope compared to documentation/release searching.

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