x_api_search_eligible_posts

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

With no annotations present, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses read-only risk, required OAuth scopes/tokens, environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is far beyond what structured fields 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 organized with clear labeled sections that quickly convey purpose, behavior, and constraints. It is somewhat verbose and contains a redundant 'Use when' that repeats the first line, but every other section earns its place by providing non-obvious details like failure modes and environment selection.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It includes purpose, exclusions, prerequisites, environment behavior, parameter formats, response shape, failure conditions, safety warnings, and a concrete example. This gives an agent sufficient context to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so through a 'Parameter formats and constraints' section covering test_mode, pagination_token, max_results, and post_selection, plus environment-selection semantics for scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, leaving two parameters without added context, so it is not fully complete.

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 'Search for Posts Eligible for Community Notes', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from general post search siblings like x_api_search_posts_all and from x_api_search_community_notes_written. The name and first line align, and the scope ('Eligible for Community Notes') makes its unique purpose 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 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide explicit guidance, including a clear exclusion: 'prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first' when exploring. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools (x_connection_info, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request), giving the agent actionable selection criteria.

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