mark_used

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the actual effect: a small, capped boost in later searches that fades over 30 days. That is exactly the consequence an agent needs to judge whether calling is worthwhile, and it confirms nothing destructive happens.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the invocation condition, followed by the payoff and the exclusion. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of guidance with no padding.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description only needs to cover intent, timing, provenance of inputs, and side effects — all of which it does. Nothing required to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so each of repo/path/name is already documented with examples. The description reinforces the key constraint ('pass them exactly as search_code returned them') but adds no format or edge-case detail the schema doesn't already carry, so the 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?

The description opens with a precise verb+resource framing ('Tell the server a result helped') and scopes it to search hits that are cited or relied upon. It also distinguishes itself from adjacent tools by noting that get_symbol and read_wiki already register a lighter use, so an agent can tell what this tool uniquely does.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('call this for each search hit you cite in your answer or rely on') and an explicit exclusion ('mark only what you actually used', since reading via get_symbol/read_wiki already counts). Both the when and the when-not are stated rather than inferred.

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