search_insights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'matching insights with full content' and is non-destructive, but lacks details on pagination, result limits, matching logic (exact/fuzzy), or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure.

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 that front-load the purpose and return information. No extraneous words; every sentence is essential.

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 basics (what it searches, returns full content). However, it lacks details on result format, ordering, or limiting, which would improve completeness. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 with a single 'query' parameter. The description adds value by providing concrete examples ('dropdown', 'mobile navigation', 'usability testing'), which helps the agent understand valid queries beyond the schema's generic description.

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 the verb ('Search'), resource ('Vitaly Friedman's UX insights'), and the action (by keyword or topic). It distinguishes from siblings like get_random_insight, get_topic, and list_topics by focusing on keyword/topic search.

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 a clear context for use ('Search by keyword or topic') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_topic for browsing topics. However, it is sufficiently clear for an AI to decide.

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