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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the schema — 'Sort stays Top' — meaning ordering cannot be changed, but it says nothing about result volume, rate limits, or the cost of the AI-backed search.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the qualifier about optional filters. There is minimal waste, though the 'using Desearch AI' branding adds little operational value.

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?

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not describe the return shape (posts? fields?), pagination, or the cost/latency of an AI-backed search. The 100%-covered schema compensates for parameter documentation, making this merely adequate rather than inadequate.

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 100%, including the format example for 'query' and the min_* engagement filters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only recaps filter categories (user, date, language, verification, media, engagement), adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond what parameters already document.

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 X (Twitter)') and names the underlying engine (Desearch AI), so the agent knows this is a general keyword/query search. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like x-links-search, x-posts-by-user, or web-search.

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 implies usage by noting that filters are optional and narrow results, but it never states when to pick this tool over siblings such as x-user-posts or x-links-search, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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