Search BIT101 posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the operation's safety and dynamic nature. The description adds the 'public' scope and 'discussion posts' resource, which is useful context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior, result ordering, or real-time semantics beyond what annotations and schema already provide.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential purpose immediately and does not repeat information already available in the schema or annotations.

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 simple search tool with three well-documented parameters, readOnly/openWorld annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. An agent can correctly understand the tool's purpose and invoke it without needing additional 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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (query, page, limit), so the description does not need to compensate. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb 'Search' and the resource 'public BIT101 discussion posts,' making the tool's purpose immediately evident. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_today_posts and get_post by emphasizing search over listing or retrieval.

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 implies this tool is for searching public posts by keyword, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like list_today_posts or get_post. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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