Quera blog

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's value is in the details it adds: default ordering (newest first), page size (10 per page), what each mode returns (excerpt and categories vs. article text), and the 6,000-character truncation with a pointer to the url for the remainder. The truncation disclosure is a real behavioral trait an agent could not infer from annotations or schema. Minor gap: page bounds (1–100) are only in the schema, not reinforced here.

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 tight sentences, no filler. The resource identity is front-loaded, then the two modes are given in the order an agent would consider them. Every clause carries information: domain, ordering, page size, return fields, truncation cap.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: listing yields excerpt plus categories, reading yields article text capped at 6,000 characters with the url for the rest. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by explaining the semantic switch that the schema only hints at: slug present changes the operation from listing to reading a full article. It also implies search and category are listing-only via the 'list only' schema notes, matching the description's framing. It stops short of giving format examples for search terms or slug syntax.

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 pair of verbs (search, read) and a specific resource (the Quera blog at quera.org/blog), plus the content domain (Persian programming, career and tech articles). Against siblings like qr_jobs, qr_problems and qr_courses, the resource is unmistakable, and the two operating modes (list vs. single article) are both stated.

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 clearly states the mode-selection rule: omit slug to list, supply slug to read an article, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs for this tool. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, though the siblings are different resources rather than substitutes, so the omission is minor.

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