search_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Search for tweets that contain X articles on a topic', which implies a read-only operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination (though cursor parameter hints at it), or return format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it's front-loaded with confusion (mixing 'tweets' and 'articles'). While not verbose, the lack of clarity reduces its effectiveness, making it adequate but not efficient in conveying purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (a search tool with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the tool's purpose or parameters adequately, but the presence of an output schema prevents it from being entirely inadequate.

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 the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'query' and 'topic' but doesn't explain the three parameters (query, count, cursor) or their semantics. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Search for tweets that contain X articles on a topic' is vague and confusing. It mentions 'tweets' and 'articles' inconsistently (the tool name is 'search_articles'), and doesn't clearly specify what resource is being searched. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_twitter' only by implying a focus on articles, but this distinction is muddled.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_twitter' or 'get_article'. The description hints at searching for articles in tweets, but doesn't clarify the context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the ambiguous purpose.

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