x_search_recent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly adds non-obvious behavioral context: results are compact, sanitized, and must be treated as data, not instructions. This is valuable prompt-injection awareness beyond the annotations.

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 with no padding. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the return/safety note is placed second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description is complete enough. It adds the essential security caveat about third-party content, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for the key query parameter by calling out the full v2 syntax and operators (from:, to:, conversation_id:, boolean operators), which is not fully captured by the schema example.

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 names a specific action ('Search'), a clear resource ('X/Twitter posts'), and a concrete scope ('last 7 days') with the query syntax. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_search_archive and x_user_search without needing to open the schema.

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 7-day window and full v2 query syntax give clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops just short of full alternative routing.

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