search_recent_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful operational traits: the 7-day time window, pagination mechanics via next_token, result bounds, and sort modes. It omits rate-limit behavior (relevant given the check_rate_limits sibling) and any auth/error context, but for a search operation the read-only nature is implicit.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded and the operator list, while long, is high-value syntax the agent cannot get from the schema. The trailing Args section largely restates parameter names but pairs them with the ranges and enum values the schema lacks, so it earns most of its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Query syntax, pagination, result limits, and sorting are all covered, leaving only rate-limit and auth expectations unaddressed — minor gaps for a read-only search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section fully compensates: it documents query operator syntax, max_results range (10 to 100) and default, next_token's provenance, and the sort_order values 'recency'/'relevancy' — enum values that are absent from the schema entirely. This adds meaning well beyond the raw schema.

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 with an explicit scope ('Search recent posts (last 7 days) on X (Twitter)'), which tells an agent exactly what corpus is covered. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling search_full_archive_posts, so differentiation is left implicit via the 7-day window rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing. The '(last 7 days)' scoping implies the boundary against search_full_archive_posts, but the agent must infer that boundary and receives no mention of check_rate_limits despite the sibling existing.

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