x_search

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are not exhaustive (open-world), small pages are preferred (cost/latency hint), and pagination requires keeping the query identical while advancing the cursor. This is highly actionable.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value: what it searches, how to paginate, and the non-exhaustive caveat.

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?

With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description need not restate return values or safety. It covers the essential behavioral context for calling the tool correctly. A brief mention of when to prefer a sibling tool would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the query and cursor relationship, the posts-or-users scope, and implies a small page size via 'prefer small pages.' It does not explain sort or detail, but those are self-explanatory enums, so the key parameter behaviors are covered.

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 ('Search') with a clear resource ('public X posts or users') and scope ('public'). This distinguishes it from sibling get/analyze/trends tools without ambiguity.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: prefer small pages, expect non-exhaustive results, and continue with the identical query and cursor. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is sufficient for correct use.

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