Search the forum

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds non-obvious context: the shape of the result set, pagination behavior, the multi-parameter input constraint, and a prompt-injection warning that returned titles/messages/usernames must be treated as data, not instructions. The injection caveat is genuine behavioral value that annotations cannot convey for an open-world search tool.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler: purpose first, then usage priority, then return shape, then preconditions, then the safety note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description must carry return-shape information itself, and it does (author, date, forum section, link, excerpt, pagination). Combined with the input constraint and safety guidance, nothing needed to invoke and interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the per-parameter docs carry the baseline. The description goes beyond that by stating the cross-parameter constraint that at least one of query, tag or user_id must be supplied, which the schema does not express since it lists zero required parameters. That fills a real gap, though individual parameter syntax adds nothing new.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Full-text search across LOLZTEAM Forum threads, posts and profile posts') and explicitly scopes the content types covered. The phrase 'full-text search' clearly separates it from sibling listing tools like forum_list_threads and forum_list_tagged_threads, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it first when the user asks what the forum says about a topic') and a hard precondition ('Requires at least one of query, tag or user_id'). It does not name a specific alternative for narrower cases (e.g. forum_list_tagged_threads), so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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