x_api_search_posts_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an exceptional job: it declares read-only risk, required permissions (bearer token), detailed environment-selection behavior (scopeTenantId plus exactly one of scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, credentialKey), expected response wrapper shape, common failure conditions (Vault creds, X API auth, rate limits), and safety warnings about sensitive data. This far exceeds typical tool descriptions and gives the agent concrete behavioral expectations.

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 uses clear labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Parameter formats, Expected response shape, etc.) making it scannable and well-structured. However, the opening 'Use when: Search all Posts' is redundant with the first sentence, and the parameter list is long but not inherently verbose. Overall it is reasonably concise for the complexity, but it could trim redundant phrasing.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers a lot: auth prerequisites, environment selection, failure modes, recommended companion tools, and safety. But it lacks any detail about the actual post data returned (only the generic wrapper), and it does not explicitly clarify the difference from 'recent' search or how pagination works beyond listing the tokens. These gaps are notable given the complexity.

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%, yet the description only restates parameter names and types without explaining semantics (what start_time, since_id, or pagination_token actually control). It even misrepresents max_results as solely an integer, while the schema allows strings matching a numeric pattern. The environment parameters get some explanation, but the core query parameters are effectively undocumented, leaving the agent without enough meaning to construct correct arguments.

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 states the verb and resource ('Search all Posts'), but it is a near-tautology of the tool name and provides no additional detail about what 'all' means (e.g., full-archive vs. current history). It does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling x_api_search_posts_recent, relying on the name alone. The 'Use when' section simply repeats the purpose without adding specificity.

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 gives some usage exclusions: 'Do not use when... only exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion first' and notes prerequisites like bearer token. However, it never explicitly contrasts with the analogous recent-search tool (x_api_search_posts_recent) or other search tools, leaving the 'when to use this vs. that' decision mostly to the agent's inference. The guidance is present but generic.

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