kaggle_search_writeups

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

Explicitly states 'Read-only and untrusted-fenced', adding behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). Annotations already cover safety, so this adds value without contradiction.

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?

Extremely concise at two sentences, packed with purpose, context, and action. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core function.

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, behavioral traits, and next steps. However, lacks parameter explanations, which are important given zero schema coverage. Output schema presence mitigates return value ambiguity.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters (search, sort_by, page_size). The description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage, relying entirely on parameter names. This is a significant gap for an agent.

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 competition solution write-ups, explaining what they are and distinguishing from general discussions. It specifies the source as the 'competition_write_ups' category and pairs with a specific prompt.

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?

Describes when to use (for strategy research via write-ups) and how to proceed (drill into one with kaggle_get_discussion). Implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like kaggle_search_discussions, though no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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