search_items

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool can 'search' or 'get recent articles', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond parameters, or what the return format looks like. This is a significant gap for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and usage, with zero wasted words. It clearly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary details.

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 tool's complexity (search functionality with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, return format, and error handling, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (query, page, per_page) with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying query is optional for getting recent articles, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('Qiita articles'), specifying it can search with a query or get recent articles without one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_items_by_tag' or 'get_items_by_user', which are more specific search variants.

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 by mentioning 'search with a query string or get recent articles without a query', which suggests when to use it (for general searches or recent articles). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_items_by_tag' for tag-based searches, leaving some ambiguity.

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