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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add context: it discloses a $0.05 cost, that platforms are 'gated' (implying access bypass), and that there are no API limits. It does not describe what a result contains, whether queries are full-text or platform-native, or failure/auth behavior, which matters for a paid third-party ('Powered by Agent Reach') call.

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 the cost front-loaded; every clause earns its place and there is zero filler. The platform list is packed efficiently into parentheses without disrupting readability.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, it covers purpose, cost, and the supported platforms, and it needn't restate return values since an output schema exists. Gaps remain: unambiguous platform value format, result semantics (full-text posts vs. metadata), and any default search behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. Naming the five platforms maps directly onto the platform parameter and is genuinely useful given there is no enum, but the exact string format for platform values is unstated and the query parameter gets no guidance beyond its self-evident name.

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 ('Search') and resource ('gated social platforms'), enumerating exactly which platforms (Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, GitHub, Bilibili). The cost and no-limit qualifiers clearly separate it from the many simple get_* fetchers among its siblings, though it doesn't explicitly name the closest alternatives (agent_reach_read_url, deep_stealth_browser_extract) it is not. Clear but lacking explicit sibling differentiation, hence 4 rather than 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?

Usage context is implied—if an agent needs cross-platform social search it should select this tool—but the description never states when to prefer it over agent_reach_read_url or deep_stealth_browser_extract. No exclusions or explicit alternative-conditions are given, leaving routing decisions to inference.

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