threads_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only the public first page is returned and that logged-out search lacks a continuation cursor. This is meaningful behavioral context about pagination and access scope, though it could also mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 core purpose, no wasted words. It covers the essential information efficiently.

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?

For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description is adequate. It states what it returns and a key limitation. However, since there is no output schema, it does not describe the shape of the results, which is a minor gap for a tool that returns a page of results.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'q' as 'Search query (1-100 characters)'. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond echoing the concept of a query, so it does not improve on the schema's 100% coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search public Threads posts.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and further specifies that it returns the first page of results. This distinctly separates it from other Threads tools like threads_post or threads_profile.

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 through its search-oriented wording but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It notes a limitation (no continuation cursor) but does not compare with sibling search tools or state when this tool should be preferred over others.

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