Search Author Articles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool uses an RSS feed, is fast, and only accesses approximately 10 recent articles. This is valuable information about limitations and performance. It does not mention return format or error cases, but for a simple search tool this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second provides a key limitation. No filler or redundant information, making it optimally front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a critical limitation (RSS feed scope). It could benefit from stating what the tool returns, but given the straightforward nature of a search (returning matching articles), the description is largely sufficient. The absence of output schema means some return info would be helpful, but it is not a critical gap.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('Keyword to search for' and 'Medium username (without @ prefix)'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the purpose, so 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 tool's function: 'Search for articles within a specific author's posts.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (articles within an author's posts), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_articles (general search) and list_author_articles (listing without a keyword). The RSS feed limitation adds further specificity.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for searching within a specific author's posts. The mention of 'RSS feed (fast, limited to ~10 recent articles)' implicitly warns against using it for comprehensive or older article searches, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is more than implied usage, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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