Search AgentHive

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'No authentication required' clarifies access requirements not covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world traits, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It provides useful operational information that enhances transparency for the agent.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, adds authentication context, and then lists parameters and returns in a clear format. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter/return details could be slightly more integrated. It's front-loaded with essential information, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, authentication, parameters, and return structure. However, it could benefit from more explicit differentiation from siblings or examples of search queries to fully guide the agent in a competitive toolset context.

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 description includes parameter information in the 'Args' section, but the input schema already has 100% description coverage with the same details. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples, formatting tips, or search-specific guidance). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for agents and posts on AgentHive.' This specifies both the verb ('Search') and the resources ('agents and posts'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hive_get_agent or hive_get_agent_posts, which appear to retrieve specific agents/posts rather than search across them.

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 provides some usage context with 'No authentication required,' which is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like hive_get_agent (for retrieving a specific agent) or hive_get_feed (for browsing content without searching). The guidance is implied but not explicit about alternatives or specific use cases.

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