Search Quera problems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the corpus size (~2,000 problems) and the fixed page size of 25, which an agent needs in order to reason about pagination. It does not describe result fields beyond 'id', which keeps it from 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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the corpus scope and page size, then usage, then the follow-up call chain. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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 seven-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what is searched, page granularity, how to obtain valid slugs and contest ids, and how to get from a result to a statement. The only gap is the shape of the result objects apart from 'id', which is left implicit.

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%, so the schema already explains tag, page, order, search, contest, category and difficulty, including the pointer to qr_problem_filters. The description only echoes the filtering dimensions ('topic, difficulty or name') without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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 Quera's public problemset') plus scope ('about 2,000 programming problems, 25 per page'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling qr_problem, which is the tool for the actual statement, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicitly says to use it 'to find practice problems by topic, difficulty or name' and names two alternatives with their roles ('qr_problem' for statements, 'qr_problem_filters' for valid slugs and contest ids). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it, e.g. browsing contests or courses, so it is clear context rather than full routing logic.

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