so_search_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that this is an external read operation via the Stack Exchange API and clarifies the data is real SO content, not SOFA's local mirror. However, it omits potential details such as rate limits, authentication, and any quirks of the external API, so coverage is moderate.

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 sentences, immediately leads with the core verb and resource, and adds only the essential contextual warning about SOFA not mirroring SO. No filler or redundancy.

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 relatively straightforward read-only search behavior and a fully self-documented 8-parameter schema, the description is largely adequate. It covers the important conceptual distinction from SOFA tools and the external API nature. It only slightly lacks explicit notes on output/result expectations or throttling, which are not critical for this tool's completeness.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description is not required to add extra semantics. The description itself only mentions 'questions' and 'Stack Overflow', which overlaps with schema fields but does not meaningfully expand on the 8 documented parameters. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('questions on Stack Overflow (or another SE site)'), and identifies the underlying mechanism ('via the Stack Exchange API'). It further distinguishes this tool from SOFA's local content by warning that SOFA itself does not mirror stackoverflow.com, which is useful for differentiating it from sibling tools like sofa_search_posts.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to 'read real SO content' and warns that SOFA does not mirror stackoverflow.com, giving clear situational context. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool (e.g., sofa_search_posts) or spell out when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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