wallabag_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: OAuth2 Bearer via WALLABAG_ACCESS_TOKEN or password grant, and the self-hosted-first deployment note. It still says nothing about what the get action returns or how the search behaves against a live instance.

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?

It is short, but the sentences are fragmentary and telegraphic ("Self-hosted Wallabag first.", "Actions: get."), and the auth note is front-loaded ahead of any statement of what the tool actually does. Nothing is wasteful, but the ordering and terse phrasing cost comprehension.

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?

This is a nested-object wrapper tool with five parameters, an action enum and no output schema, so the description carries real burden. It does not explain how to form the query/body/params for a search, what the single get action does, or what comes back, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer from the schema.

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% and all five parameters, including the action enum, are documented in the schema. The description only explains the help/target pairing, which the schema's target description already states, so it adds little beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"covers the search toolset (1 operations)" restates the tool name rather than describing what is searched (entries? annotations? tags?) or what the result is. The only concrete statement is "Actions: get", which is a wrapper artifact, not a purpose. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like wallabag_entries or wallabag_tags.

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 only usage-like statement is about the meta-action "action help with target returns one action's parameters", which explains a help mode rather than when to call search versus other wallabag tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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