search_public_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: results are newest-first excerpts with exact sources and continuation, and it explicitly rules out private/archived content and semantic ranking. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention rate limits or auth—acceptable for a read-only tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and matching behavior are front-loaded, followed by result ordering and exclusions. Every clause adds value, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers the search semantics, result ordering, pagination hint, and exclusions. Minor gaps include explicit pagination mechanics (offset vs cursor) and error behavior, but these are not critical for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'type' parameter (one public content type) and the 'query' parameter (literal, case-insensitive substring), but says nothing about 'limit' or 'offset'. The mention of 'continuation' hints at pagination but does not explicitly describe these parameters. Given the zero coverage, this is only partial compensation.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Search'), a resource ('one public content type'), and precise matching semantics ('literal, case-insensitive substring'). It also differentiates from siblings like search_posts by emphasizing literal matching and the single-type scope, so an agent can distinguish it without reading other schemas.

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 states what the tool does and what it excludes ('No private or archived content; no semantic ranking'), which clarifies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use X instead for semantic search', leaving some inference to the agent. The context is clear but lacks direct sibling routing.

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