search_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool searches and returns a list, offering no information about read-only safety, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the 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?

The description is highly concise, using only three short sections (summary, Args, Returns) with no extraneous words. The structure is clean and front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a nested request object with many filters, the description is too thin. It fails to explain when to use this tool versus siblings, does not mention important behaviors like pagination limits or read-only status, and offers no guidance on constructing the request. The output schema may exist, but the description itself leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 description adds a minimal summary of the 'request' parameter as containing filters and pagination, but since the schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameter, it does not fully compensate. The nested schema properties are richly described, so the agent can infer structure, but the description adds little beyond the obvious.

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 clearly states the tool searches Stack Overflow questions using advanced filters, which specifies both the verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_questions_by_tag, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_questions_by_tag or fetch_question_answers. It does not mention any exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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