check_keyword_exists

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses side effect (lifting batch limit for filter_by_keyword) and constraint (lightweight return, no body). This is good transparency for a simple tool, though could mention if it modifies state permanently.

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, front-loaded with purpose, minimal and no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose and behavioral detail.

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 single-parameter tool with output schema (known but not displayed), description covers core purpose, return characteristics (lightweight), and side effect. Sufficient for agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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 0% so description must compensate. The description mentions the 'keyword' parameter implicitly (keyword to search for) but does not add format or constraints beyond schema. Adequate but not compensating fully.

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 the tool checks if a keyword exists in the current checkpoint's entries, and explicitly distinguishes by promising only lightweight index (id + hit positions) without body content. This is specific and sets it apart from sibling tools like filter_by_keyword which presumably return more data.

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?

Description explains a key usage context: after calling this tool, the batch limit for filter_by_keyword on that keyword is lifted for 5 minutes. It also delineates return format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, missing full guidance.

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