Search posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, so the bar for adding behavioral context is lower. The description adds critical behavioral details beyond annotations: authentication requirement (requires connected account) and endpoint refusal by public API, which informs an agent of failure modes and prerequisites. This meaningfully extends the structured metadata.

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second enumerates the supported operators in a scannable list, and the third covers prerequisites. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the query language, authentication needs, and the specific limitation regarding the public API. It does not describe the return structure or explicit error handling, but given the schema covers parameters and pagination is mentioned in the schema, the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to use the tool correctly. A small gap remains in not describing typical response shape or rate limits.

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 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description repeats the operator syntax that is already partially covered in the q field's description and adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 it is a full-text search across public posts with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported search operators that distinguish it from sibling search tools like search_actors and search_feeds, making the purpose 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: to search public posts using Bluesky's search syntax. It mentions the requirement of a connected account and warns that Bluesky's public API refuses this endpoint, giving clear preconditions. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or direct comparisons to alternatives, but the tool name and resource scope make that evident.

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