stackoverflow-intel

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return fields, sorting options, and filter capabilities. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The note about returning 'top-scored questions' is helpful but could be more detailed about default behavior (e.g., sorting by votes). Still, it is fairly transparent for a read-only 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?

Five sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, return fields, filtering, sorting, and usage context. No redundant or unnecessary information. Information is front-loaded, making it easy to quickly grasp the tool's functionality.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: what is returned, sorting, filtering, and usage context. It explains the return fields adequately. Missing details like pagination beyond limit parameter or potential error cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward search tool.

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%. The description adds value by advising 'Use natural language or error messages' for the q parameter. However, there is a clear contradiction: description states 'Filter by tags (comma-separated)' while schema says 'Semicolon-separated list of required tags (e.g. 'python;asyncio').' This inconsistency undermines clarity and could mislead an agent. Baseline for high schema coverage is 3, but the contradiction reduces it to 2.

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?

Description clearly states 'Stack Overflow question search' with specific return fields (answer counts, accepted-answer status, tags, body excerpts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arxiv-intel, hn-search, etc., which serve different sources. Verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'useful for developer agents debugging errors or researching library patterns.' While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, the context is clear and fits the tool's purpose. No direct sibling alternative for Stack Overflow search exists in the list, reducing need for contrast.

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