search_opinions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It provides meaningful behavioral detail: search covers multiple platforms, 'auto' resolves to all platforms, empty routing_hints trigger auto-detection from the query, and routing_hints can dramatically improve result quality. It stops short of discussing limits, error behavior, or latency, but these are secondary for a search tool and the output schema covers return shape.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then organized into clear argument docs. The routing_hints section is lengthy but earns its length with format specs, multiple concrete examples, and special-case values. There is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

The description covers all four parameters, available platform values, routing_hints syntax and examples, and the auto-detection behavior. Since an output schema exists, the return format does not need to be spelled out. An agent has enough information to select, parameterize, and invoke this tool 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 fully — and it does. It explains the query with an example, enumerates all available platforms, specifies the default for limit, and gives a thorough breakdown of routing_hints including format, multiple examples, supported forum IDs, and fallback behavior. This is exactly the kind of parameter documentation an agent needs.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Search for real public opinions across multiple platforms.' This distinguishes the basic action from a vague or tautological statement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like search_opinions_perspective or get_thread_opinions, 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 gives detailed invocation guidance, but it never states when to choose this tool over the sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no mentions of search_opinions_perspective, get_thread_opinions, or list_available_platforms, and no context about which use cases each sibling serves. The usage context is only implicit in the tool's purpose.

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