Search cantkeepupwithai.com

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable constraints: 'Returns up to 5 matches per category' and 'Query must be at least 2 characters.' This provides actionable behavioral expectations beyond just saying 'search.' It doesn't explicitly state read-only status, but 'search' implies non-destructive behavior, and the stated limits are useful.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and scope; the second adds behavioral constraints. Information is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: scope, result limits, and input constraints. It doesn't specify the exact fields of returned matches, but given the simplicity and the clear category grouping, it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. A slight gap is the lack of return value details, but overall it's complete enough.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'query' with a description including the minimum length. The tool description repeats this constraint ('Query must be at least 2 characters') but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 what the tool does: 'Full-site search across trends, digest stories, and the AI toolbox.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (full site), and differentiates itself from sibling tools that target specific content types. The mention of returning up to 5 matches per category further clarifies its scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: for site-wide search across multiple content categories. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are obviously for specific lookups, so the usage context is clear. No explicit 'when not to use' is provided, but the scope is evident.

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