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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add useful behavioral context: platform-specific sort semantics and the exclusion of LinkedIn/Threads from keyword search. However, it leaves other operational behaviors undisclosed, such as cursor/pagination behavior, what an invalid platform produces, and any rate limits or auth requirements.

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 zero filler: core purpose front-loaded first, sort caveat second, platform exclusion and pointer third. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant information appears first.

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 4-parameter, multi-platform search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential calling contract well but omits cursor semantics and any indication of the return shape or pagination behavior. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves clear gaps an agent would hit on real usage.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: q (keyword), platform (enumerated in prose), and sort (varies by platform, omit for default — genuine added nuance). The cursor parameter is entirely unexplained, which is the main gap.

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 posts or videos by keyword') and scopes it to five named platforms, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It differentiates from siblings like search_users implicitly (posts/videos vs. users), though it never explicitly contrasts with search_users or get_user_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 gives explicit when-not guidance ('LinkedIn and Threads have no keyword search') and routes the agent to a concrete alternative ('use list_routes to see what they do offer'). It also advises on sort behavior, but it does not address when to prefer this tool over other search-like siblings such as search_users.

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