search_essays

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state the scope of the search (title, description, content), which is useful. However, it omits matching semantics, how the optional filters combine with the keyword, and any result-shape details, though 'search' does imply a read-only operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scope of search. No filler or redundant parameter listing.

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 core behavior is captured for a simple search tool and the schema covers all parameters. But with no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools present, the description could have explained what is returned and when to prefer list_essays or get_essay.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter detail beyond repeating the query field's scope, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search essays by keyword' and exactly which fields are searched. This differentiates it from list_essays (no keyword) and get_essay (single retrieval) without needing to inspect the schema.

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 the tool is for keyword-driven lookup across title, description, and content, giving a clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with list_essays/get_essay is evident from the wording.

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