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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a cost of 1 scraper credit per successful search (implying failed searches may not be charged) and an outline of the returned shape (title/text, author, URL, engagement, meta). It stops short of detailing rate limits or per-platform behavioral quirks.

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 compact sentences: capability and scope first, then return shape and cost, then use cases. No redundancy and every sentence adds an actionable fact.

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 no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape and discloses the credit cost, which is the key operational fact for a paid scraping call. It is nearly complete; only cross-platform differences (e.g. which sort values each platform honors) are left implicit.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults, enums, and the Reddit-only subreddits constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when structured fields carry the load.

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 (public posts) and enumerates the exact platforms (Reddit, X, LinkedIn) plus the input mode (keyword). An agent can distinguish it from the sibling get_social_post (fetch a single post) and get_x_comments without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names intended use cases (social listening, market research, finding discussions about a topic or brand), which gives clear context for selection. However, it does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative sibling for single-post retrieval, so routing guidance is contextual rather than exclusive.

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