Search accounts

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious details: it works without credentials and returns each account's bio and follower counts specifically to help distinguish real accounts from impersonators, enhancing the transparency beyond annotation flags.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The first states the core action, the second covers the credential requirement, and the third explains the output value and intended use. The structure is front-loaded and each sentence justifies its inclusion.

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?

The description covers purpose, access requirements, and the most relevant return fields (bio and follower counts), giving an agent enough to judge when to use it. The absence of an output schema makes the incomplete return structure a minor gap, but the parameter schema and concise summary are sufficient for a read-only 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 75%, and the schema itself describes q, limit, and account. The tool description adds meaning to q by specifying it accepts a name, handle, or bio keyword. However, cursor remains undocumented, and the description does not elaborate on limit or account beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with "Find Bluesky accounts by name, handle or bio text," which names a specific action and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_posts and search_feeds, which target other object types.

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 useful context ('Works without credentials') and highlights a use case (spotting impersonators), but it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage must be inferred rather than directly guided.

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