chuck_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose—no result count, pagination, auth needs, or rate-limit details—so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately conveys the action and resource without unnecessary preamble.

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 one annotated parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is broadly sufficient for correct invocation. It could be improved by explicitly noting how it differs from sibling tools, but nothing critical is missing for calling it.

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 single query parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Search query (min 3 chars)'), so the schema already documents its semantics. The description's 'by keyword' phrasing aligns with that but adds no format, matching behavior, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb (Search) and resource (Chuck Norris jokes) with the keyword-based scope. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like chuck_random or chuck_categories, leaving the agent to infer that this is the keyword-search variant.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as chuck_random or chuck_categories. The phrase 'by keyword' hints at a search context but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling routing.

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