buzz_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the search covers recent messages, supports NIP-50, and has a default limit, which is useful. However, it does not clarify what 'recent' means, whether results are sorted, or what the response structure looks like, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes essential information: search scope, protocol, and parameter behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core calling contract: what is searched, how to scope, and the default limit. The only notable gaps are the vague 'recent' window and the absence of any result-format hints, but the core usage is sufficiently complete.

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. It explains the channel parameter as a scope filter and the limit's default of 20, adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not describe the required query parameter beyond implying it holds the full-text search terms, leaving its format and semantics partially implicit.

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 performs a full-text search over recent messages across channels, with a specific protocol reference (NIP-50). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buzz_read or buzz_channels because it is explicitly a search operation, not a read or channel-management action.

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 when to use the tool: when full-text search of messages is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as buzz_read for reading messages or buzz_dm_search, and it gives no 'when not to use' guidance. Usage context is present but not explicit.

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