x_search

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

The description explicitly labels the tool as 'read-only', which is a useful behavioral signal, especially since no annotations are provided. However, it fails to disclose other important behaviors like return format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose. It avoids fluff, though its brevity limits the information conveyed.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden. It only provides a high-level purpose and the read-only hint, leaving out essential details about result types, filter semantics, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameter values or usage; it only mentions 'free-form' which hints at query flexibility but doesn't elaborate beyond the schema.

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 says 'Free-form read-only X/Twitter research' which conveys a search-like purpose but is vague about what type of results are returned. It doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tool 'search_tweets', which likely has a more specific search scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention 'search_tweets' or any other sibling, nor does it describe suitable use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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