search_articles

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

No annotations exist, but the description accurately characterizes the tool as a read-only search. However, it lacks details on pagination, result limits, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic search function.

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 sentence, but it includes inaccurate information about searchable fields (category, publication) not supported by the schema, making it ineffective despite brevity.

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 description does not cover output format or results structure despite an output schema existing. Combined with the parameter inaccuracy, the description is incomplete for a tool with one required parameter.

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 input schema has only one parameter 'keyword' with full description, yet the tool description claims search by 'category, or publication' which are not represented in the schema. This contradiction misleads about available filter options.

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 Pavan's published industry articles with specific verb 'Search' and resource 'articles', and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_eb1a_evidence or get_github_activity which deal with different content types.

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 for finding articles but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The purpose is clear but no comparative context is given.

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