x_api_stream_posts_compliance

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full transparency responsibility. It discloses read-only risk, bearer token requirements, environment-selection behavior for scoped credentials, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This goes far beyond what annotations would typically provide and gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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 well-structured with clear labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection, Parameter formats, Expected response, Failure conditions, Recommended tools, Safety, Example). Each section adds value, though the 'Use when' line is redundant and the overall length is substantial. It is organized enough to be navigable without being overly verbose.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers a remarkable amount: purpose, usage, risk, permissions, environment behavior, parameter constraints for key fields, expected response shape, failure conditions, recommended auxiliary tools, safety warnings, and an example call. This provides an agent with nearly everything needed 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, credentialKey, and lists four query parameters with types. However, it inaccurately constrains 'partition' and 'backfill_minutes' to integers when the schema permits string representations. It also omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, leaving important gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 'Stream Posts compliance data,' which clearly identifies the verb (stream), resource (posts), and domain (compliance). While it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like x_api_stream_posts_firehose or x_api_stream_posts_sample, the 'compliance' qualifier in both the name and description helps differentiate it from those general streams.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections. The 'Use when' is tautological, repeating the purpose, but the 'Do not use when' gives actionable guidance: avoid when auth/configuration tools are needed first, and prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also recommends prerequisite and follow-up tools, further aiding selection.

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