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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states results are 'bounded' and include 'source links', and it mentions the cost per call. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the exact meaning of 'bounded'. It gives some behavioral context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action, lists filters, and states the output nature and cost. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the information it provides.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal and incomplete. It lacks parameter-specific details, response format specifics (beyond 'bounded tweet-like results'), and any error or edge-case information. An agent would need to guess parameter semantics and behavior, making it insufficient for reliable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It lists categories (words, phrases, hashtags, account, date filters) but does not map them to the actual parameter names (to, from, since, until, words, phrase, hashtags) or explain their formats. An agent cannot confidently determine which parameter corresponds to which filter or what values are expected, making this inadequate for a 7-parameter tool.

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 clearly states it searches publicly indexed social posts and returns tweet-like results, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from general web search by mentioning 'social posts' and 'tweet-like results', though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 for social post searching via the mention of 'words, phrases, hashtags, account and date filters', but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives. An agent could infer when to use this tool (when needing social posts), but there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to other search tools like web_search or profile_search.

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