kaggle_search_discussions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. Description adds context: no corresponding write tools exist, titles are untrusted. No contradiction. Could mention pagination details, but still adds value beyond 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 short sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds essential information. No fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, output format, read-only nature, security note, and link to detailed view. Missing guidance on pagination behavior despite a page_size parameter, but overall sufficient for a simple search tool.

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?

Parameter schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description does not elaborate on the meaning or usage of search, sort_by, category, or page_size, leaving the agent to infer from names and defaults.

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 'Search/list Kaggle discussion topics' and specifies the return format as a compact table with fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kaggle_get_discussion and other search tools by noting the lack of write capabilities.

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?

Explicitly states READ-ONLY and notes that there is no post/reply/vote tool, guiding when (not) to use. Also advises caution about untrusted titles and directs drill-down to kaggle_get_discussion.

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