dadjoke_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond them: no word on whether matching is exact or substring, whether results can be empty, or how pagination behaves when the term is missing from the response.

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 no filler or repetition. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally say something about the shape of results (list of jokes, total count) and pagination interaction with page/limit. Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% — every parameter (term, page, limit) is individually documented with defaults and the max-30 cap for limit. The description adds no extra meaning beyond restating that the search is keyword-based, so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Search for dad jokes') plus the search dimension ('by keyword'), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools dadjoke_random or dadjoke_by_id, so a reader must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of dadjoke_random (arbitrary joke) or dadjoke_by_id (direct lookup), and no prerequisites or edge-case handling are mentioned. The usage is implied by the verb 'search' but never stated.

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