Search Trustcase use cases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces read-only while adding context annotations cannot carry: corpus size, the meaning of the 0-100 trust score, and the exact fields returned (slug, title, category, summary, trust score, link). The trailing 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotation, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is and how big the corpus is, then usage triggers, then the follow-up step. The long enumerated example list is the only padding, though each example does sharpen the trigger condition.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so by listing returned fields and pointing to the follow-up tool. It omits pagination behavior and the default limit of 10 that is only visible in the schema, a minor gap for a four-parameter search tool.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters, but the description adds real guidance the schema lacks: pass a few plain words rather than a full question, with concrete query examples ('ebay prices', 'customer replies'). It says nothing extra about category, min_trust_score or limit beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (search Trustcase use cases) and immediately characterizes the corpus: 97 use cases each with a 0-100 trust score. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling by stating that get_use_case is the follow-up call, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions with four quoted example user questions, then states the exact next step: call get_use_case with the best slug. When-to-use and the alternative are both spelled out rather than implied.

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