Research the last 30 days

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses multi-source fetching, trailing window, relevance-reranking, deduplication, and a compress option. It does not cover rate limits, authentication, or output format, but the key behaviors are well-described.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and key features. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite tool complexity (multiple sources, parameters, no output schema), the description lacks details on output format, return values, or limits. It mentions reranking and dedup but does not explain what the results look like, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 each parameter has a schema description. The tool description adds general behavioral context (e.g., reranking, dedup) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'recent community/social signal on a topic' from a defined set of sources. It distinguishes from siblings by listing specific sources and mentioning a trailing window filter, which is unique among the sibling tool names.

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 fetching recent social signals on a topic but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'retrieve_context' or 'scan_local_codebase'. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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