Search a topic tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: results are public-only, matching is exact (one tag per post, no # prefix), and the tool shares a quota with search_keyword. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope, matching semantics, and budget constraint. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational aspects: public scope, exact-match behavior, and the shared rate budget. Minor gaps remain — the response shape is not hinted at, and the search_type parameter's TOP vs RECENT distinction is unexplained — but these are secondary for a read-only search operation.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters documented), which puts the baseline at 3. The description adds real value on top by clarifying tag semantics — exact match, one per post, written without # — which affects how an agent should construct the tag argument. The search_type enum (TOP/RECENT) remains undocumented in both description and schema, a minor gap.

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 identifies the resource precisely (public posts by topic tag) and explicitly differentiates from the most similar sibling, search_keyword, by stating this is an exact tag match rather than a text search. The verb is implied by the name/title but the resource and matching semantics make the tool's function unambiguous.

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 names the alternative tool (search_keyword) and clarifies the boundary between them: exact tag match versus text search, which effectively tells an agent when each tool applies. It also discloses the shared 2,200-query daily budget, an operational constraint affecting tool choice. However, it stops short of an explicit 'use this when / use that instead' statement.

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