search_stamps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format looks like (e.g., list of stamps with metadata), pagination behavior (implied by page/page_size parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a search tool with 9 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the main purpose. There's no unnecessary repetition or verbose explanations, though it could potentially benefit from a brief second sentence about typical use cases or limitations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, search functionality) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'Bitcoin stamp' in this context, what data is returned, how results are structured, or any limitations on search scope. For a tool that likely returns complex data structures, the description should provide more context about the expected output and behavioral characteristics.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'creator, collection, and stamp type' as examples of filtering criteria, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships, typical values, or usage patterns. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation given the comprehensive schema coverage.

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 action ('Search for Bitcoin stamps') and resource ('Bitcoin stamps'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the filtering capabilities ('with various filtering criteria including creator, collection, and stamp type'), which helps distinguish it from simple retrieval tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_collections' or 'search_tokens' beyond mentioning 'Bitcoin stamps'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_recent_stamps' (for recent items without filtering), 'search_collections' (for collections rather than stamps), or 'get_stamp' (for retrieving a specific stamp by ID). There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic search functionality.

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