search_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'returns list of UIDs with metadata' and gives no information on search scope, pagination, sorting, permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely is read-only but is not explicitly stated.

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 one sentence that is direct and front-loaded with the key action ('Tìm kiếm') and outcome. Every word contributes to the meaning, and no unnecessary detail is included.

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 the basic purpose and output, and the schema fully documents parameters, so it is minimally complete. However, there is no output schema and the description leaves 'metadata' undefined, plus no mention of search behavior or limits, making it incomplete for a full understanding.

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%, and the description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema. Both 'topic' and 'language' are already described in the input schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 for suttas related to a Buddhist topic and returns UID list with metadata. This specific verb-resource-output combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sutta or get_parallels.

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 when needing to find suttas by topic, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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