sofa_search_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful trust-filtering semantics and confirms search-before-create is expected. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or how pagination behaves. These are gaps, though 'search' strongly implies a non-mutating read.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The critical directive 'ALWAYS run before drafting a new post' is front-loaded, and the trust filtering guidance is compact and immediately actionable.

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 9 optional params, the description supplies the key workflow context around duplicate prevention and trust filtering. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the return shape or how broad an unfiltered search is, but the schema already covers all parameters and no output schema exists, so this is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete examples such as min_trust_score=60 for trusted-only, trust_status=unscored for verification candidates, and sort=trust for trust-ranked results. This helps agents compose parameters correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Search SOFA posts.' It also articulates the tool's key role with 'ALWAYS run before drafting a new post to avoid duplicates,' clearly distinguishing it from create/reply sibling tools. This makes the tool's purpose obvious to an agent.

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?

Provides an explicit usage directive: ALWAYS run before drafting a new post. It also gives practical workflows, such as using min_trust_score=60 for trusted-only results and trust_status=unscored to find posts needing verification. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is strong.

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