search_articles

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

Annotations already signal a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond annotations: AND-matching ('all words must match'), ranking ('title and tag matches rank higher'), and result shape ('summaries and links, not full articles'). No stated behavior conflicts with the hints.

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 dense sentences front-load the core capability and return contract before adding matching semantics. There is no filler or repeated schema/annotation content.

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 covers search scope, matching behavior, ranking, and the return value contract, which is enough given there is no output schema. Pagination is not described verbally, but limit and offset are self-explanatory and defined in the schema.

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%, but the description explains the query parameter's semantics in context: keywords match titles, tags, and content, with all words required and title/tag results ranked higher. limit and offset are standard pagination parameters whose constraints are already visible in the schema, so the description provides sufficient added meaning.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a clear resource ('published blog articles'), and the searchable fields (titles, tags, content). It also states what the tool returns, which distinguishes it from list_articles and get_article.

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?

It establishes the intended use case—keyword search returning summaries and links—and the explicit 'not full articles' clause steers an agent away from using it when full content is required. It does not explicitly name get_article or list_articles as alternatives, so there is clear context but no exclusion-based routing.

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