Search topics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains that the search covers article titles and text and that results are slugs and summaries, but it does not disclose result ordering, matching behavior, or explicitly confirm the operation is read-only. These are gaps, though not severe for a search tool.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's scope, and the second sentence explains the return value and the natural next step. Every phrase earns its place.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what results look like and how to retrieve full articles. It could add explicit statements about result ranking or pagination behavior, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query and limit with descriptions, defaults, and bounds. The description adds that query applies to titles and text, but no additional parameter-level meaning is needed.

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 states a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Keyword search over Smartipedia article titles and text.' It also states what the tool returns (slugs and summaries), which clearly distinguishes it from read_topic and other sibling tools.

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 implies when to use it via 'Keyword search,' but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like discover_topics or list_missing_topics. It does provide useful follow-up guidance by telling the agent to call read_topic with a returned slug.

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