Topic Search

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by naming the return fields, but it fails to disclose search match scope, ordering, or pagination behavior, which are the meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation and resource, then gives the return shape, so every sentence contributes useful information.

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 read-only keyword search with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and a stated return shape, the description is mostly complete. It could be improved by clarifying whether matches come from topic titles, post content, or replies, but nothing here prevents an agent from selecting and invoking the tool 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 coverage is 100%: keyword, limit, and _jq are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline case for high coverage.

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 names a specific resource ('community topics/posts') and a specific verb ('Search ... by keyword'), and it lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly contrast topic_search with sibling tools like topic, topic_detail, topic_replies, or news_search, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'by keyword' implies the main use case: call this when searching community content rather than fetching a known topic by ID. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no clarification of whether it searches titles, bodies, or both.

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