Search articles

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

Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds real context beyond them: sort order (newest first) and the returned field set (id, title, date, url, short summary), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of covering pagination behavior or empty-result handling.

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 the core action and ordering, then adds follow-up routing in one short block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 six-parameter search tool with no output schema and strong annotation coverage, the description supplies the return field list, sort order, narrowing filters, and next-step tools. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 83%, so the schema already documents query, tag, year, page, limit and category. The description merely restates that tag narrows to one topic and year to one publishing year, adding no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules (e.g., how query and tag combine) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Gamefa's news, reviews and features by keyword') plus result ordering ('newest matches first'), which immediately separates it from listing tools like gf_latest_articles or gf_popular. The scope of returned fields is also named, so an agent knows what kind of result to expect.

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 an explicit use case ('what has Gamefa written about X') and routes follow-ups correctly: gf_article for full text, gf_game/gf_reviews for review scores. It never explicitly rules out the closest siblings (gf_latest_articles, gf_popular) by name, so the exclusion is implied by the keyword requirement rather than stated.

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