Search Are.na

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add genuine behavioral value by disclosing the v3-to-v2 fallback for premium-gated content and stating results are normalized, which hints at output shape variance. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or whether results from the fallback differ in structure.

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 with no waste: the first states the core action and output characteristic, the second adds the fallback behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause 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 13 parameters, three enums, pagination controls, and no output schema or annotations, two sentences are inadequate. Missing context includes default sort/scope/type behavior, what 'normalized' means for the returned shape, pagination defaults, and how the version fallback might alter response fields. The description is sufficient to call the tool with the required query alone, but not to use it well.

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% while the description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the gap. The schema's self-documenting enums (sort, type, scope) and the implied 'query' requirement help slightly, but 13 parameters — including opaque ones like ext, after, seed, include_raw, and the three ID filters — receive zero semantic explanation.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search Are.na') and adds what the tool returns ('normalized results'), which clearly distinguishes it from the get_* sibling tools that fetch specific resources by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling get_channel_contents, get_user, or get_block_details tools, nor any exclusion criteria. The v3/v2 fallback note describes internal behavior but not usage context. An agent must infer that 'search' is for discovery while 'get' is for direct retrieval.

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