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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond these: it clarifies the tool accesses public research data only, does not involve account access or trading, and explicitly disclaims investment advice. This goes beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations for the agent.

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?

The description is concise (about 4 sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and then efficiently lists alternatives and safety constraints. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 9 optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It clearly states what the tool does, its scope, its exclusions, and how it differs from siblings. The output schema covers return values, and the annotations cover safety/read-only aspects, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning—it mentions the query is 'for a topic' and aggregates sentiment, but these are largely redundant with the schema's own parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Search and analyze') with a clear resource (X/Twitter discussions) and scope ('for a topic, with tweet-level evidence and cited posts'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming get_social_sentiment, web_search, and search_ugc as alternatives for different needs, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance: it directs aggregate sentiment tasks to get_social_sentiment, open-web pages to web_search, and multi-platform search to search_ugc. It also states the tool's limitations ('Read-only public research data. No account access, no order placement or fund transfers'), giving the agent clear decision criteria.

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