Search Are.na

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that no token is needed and that results are compact objects containing an image URL and an Are.na link, but it omits other behavioral details such as pagination behavior, response limits, or type-specific result differences.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by output shape and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 the description covers the main idea, but with no output schema and no annotations it stops short of full completeness. It omits pagination semantics, exact fields of the returned objects, and any error or empty-result behavior, which an agent would need for robust usage.

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 schema describes 'query' and 'type' with helpful detail, but schema coverage is only 50%. The description adds no information about the pagination parameters 'per' and 'page', which remain undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the agent gets no semantic guidance for those parameters.

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 names a specific action ('Search') and a clear resource ('Are.na'), and scopes it to visual references: channels, image blocks, and users. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by presenting a broad search over those three categories, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with direct-fetch tools.

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 such as arena_block, arena_channel, or arena_channel_contents. The phrase 'Search Are.na' implies a query-driven use case, and 'Works without a token' gives some context, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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