build_request_to_find_users_posts_by_sec_user_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description is essentially empty, providing no information about whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how the tool behaves.

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?

While technically concise (just a truncated note), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't communicate the tool's purpose or usage, so it fails at its fundamental job. The structure is broken (truncated text) and doesn't front-load essential information.

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 that this is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that suggest complex user/post finding functionality, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool returns, how it differs from similar tools, or what context it operates in. The agent would have to guess based on the tool name alone.

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% for the single parameter 'X-Fields', which is documented as 'An optional fields mask'. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, but with high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate or add value, but doesn't need to given the schema completeness.

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 is completely missing - it only contains a truncated note about endpoints ending with a backslash, which doesn't state what the tool does at all. There's no verb+resource description, no indication of functionality, and no differentiation from sibling tools. This is worse than tautology - it's essentially empty.

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 are absolutely no usage guidelines provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use this tool, what problem it solves, or how it differs from the many sibling tools listed (like find_user_by_sec_user_id_fetch_profile_info_fetch_user_p). No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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