advice_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the keyword-matching nature of the query; it says nothing about result count, pagination, or whether matching is exact, substring, or fuzzy.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and scoping qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it leans so terse that it omits useful matching context rather than being exemplary.

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 one-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. Still missing is any indication of what the search returns or how many results, which matters even without an output schema.

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% and the sole parameter 'query' is documented as 'Search keyword'. The description's phrase 'by keyword' merely echoes the schema, adding no syntax, quoting, or matching-semantics detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search advice slips') plus the matching mode ('by keyword'), so the agent can tell it apart from random/by-id siblings like advice_random and advice_by_id. It doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, so the differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you have a keyword and want matching advice slips. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or pointer to advice_random for unsolicited picks or advice_by_id for known identifiers.

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