search-piazza-posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a critical warning about untrusted user-generated content and instructs the agent not to treat post text as commands, which is valuable context beyond annotations. It does not elaborate on return format, but the output schema compensates.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and the second adds a security caveat. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is mostly complete for a search tool. It covers the core purpose and includes an important security warning. However, it lacks explicit parameter guidance and does not clarify what 'bounded post summaries' entails, leaving some ambiguity around result limits and search scope.

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 only 33% – only course_id has a description. The description hints at 'bounded post summaries' which relates to max_results, but it does not explicitly explain the query parameter or the max_results constraint. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb (search), resource (one configured Piazza course), and output (bounded post summaries). It distinguishes itself from sibling list/get tools by focusing on search within a single course, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies usage for searching within a specific course, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list-piazza-posts, list-piazza-filtered-posts, or get-piazza-post. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving selection to inference.

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