Search posts (raw)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so no safety caveat is needed. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: raw query syntax, modifier support, and a notable CJK analyzer limitation with a concrete mitigation ('append * to Korean terms'). It does not describe return shape, but the tool is a search and the schema already governs max_results.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: the raw/low-level positioning, the modifier syntax, the CJK caveat, and the routing advice are all non-redundant. Critical information is front-loaded before the search_context comparison.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and a clear sibling relationship, the description covers the essential decision factors: precise query capability, syntax options, locale-related caveat, and when to choose the alternative. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the central 'terms' parameter by documenting modifier syntax, quoted phrases, wildcards, and Korean-text behavior—far beyond the schema's example. Other parameters rely on schema descriptions, which are already adequate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Low-level Mattermost message search using raw query syntax.' It clearly differentiates itself from search_context by positioning itself as the precise, raw-syntax alternative rather than a natural-language tool.

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 states when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'Prefer search_context for natural-language questions; use this when you need a precise query.' It also documents supported modifiers, giving the agent concrete guidance for constructing valid queries.

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