x_search

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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it performs a single Responses request, provides original-post citations, explicitly reports no-source status, reports usage, does not automatically retry, and depends on subscription or paid API mode. This is substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then packs important behavioral caveats into a few short sentences. There is no filler or redundant restatement of schema fields, and every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

The description gives strong behavioral context such as citations, no-source status, no retry, and API mode, which helps an agent understand side effects and limits. With no output schema, it does not fully describe the return shape, but it does disclose key output-related behaviors. Given the 8-parameter schema and missing parameter documentation for some fields, a bit more parameter context would make it 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 only 50%, leaving query, media, detail, and exclude_handles without descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not compensate for these gaps; it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond stating the search purpose. The schema covers count and dates, but the description itself adds essentially no parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search X/Twitter with native Grok search.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and even distinguishes the mechanism (native Grok search) from generic search. There are no sibling tools to differentiate, so this is fully unambiguous.

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 searching X/Twitter and notes the operational mode ('configured subscription or paid API mode'), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, provide exclusions, or describe typical scenarios. With no sibling tools, alternative routing is not required, but explicit usage guidance is still missing.

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