search_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful traits beyond the schema: scope (post text only), ordering (newest first), and result cap (max 50). It does not mention rate limits or explicit read-only status, but for a search tool the disclosed behavior is solid.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the scope clarification is compact and immediately useful. 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?

For a simple search tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it searches, what it excludes, ordering, and result limits. It does not describe the return structure, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this a minor gap.

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 schema already documents token, query, and limit. The description mostly restates the cap ('max 50 results') and substring matching already present in the schema, adding no new per-parameter meaning.

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'), a clear resource ('discussion posts'), and the matching mechanism ('by substring'). It further distinguishes itself by explicitly excluding marginalia, postcards, and titles, making its purpose unambiguous even among many sibling tools.

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 description gives clear when-not guidance by stating it matches post text only and not marginalia, postcards, or titles. However, it does not name alternative tools to use for those excluded content types, so it stops short of fully explicit routing.

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