x_api_stream_posts_firehose_en

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so richly. It discloses read-only nature, bearer token prerequisite, environment-selection behavior for scoped credentials, expected response shape, common failure conditions (including Vault credentials, rate limits, auth failures), and a safety warning about sensitive data in responses. This goes well beyond the structured schema.

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 labeled sections, front-loads the core action, and includes an example. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Risk: read-only' and 'Safety warnings' both state read-only), and the 'Use when' line is filler. Overall, the length is justified for a 10-parameter tool without annotations, but slight trimming would improve conciseness.

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?

The description covers many operational aspects: auth prerequisites, environment selection, expected response shape, failure conditions, and safety. However, it lacks clarity on what 'partition' means or valid values, does not explain the purpose of start_time/end_time/backfill_minutes, and provides no details about streaming behavior (e.g., long-lived connection or pagination). These gaps are significant for a 10-parameter tool with no output schema.

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%, and the description must compensate. It lists formats/locations for backfill_minutes, partition, start_time, and end_time, and explains the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in auth resolution. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of the time/partition parameters, and entirely omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType. This leaves significant ambiguity for 4+ parameters.

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 clearly states the action 'Stream English Posts', using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from language-specific sibling tools like _ja, _ko, and _pt. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the generic x_api_stream_posts_firehose, leaving slight ambiguity about whether the base version is language-neutral or a superset.

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' clause is tautological ('Stream English Posts'), providing no decision criteria. The 'Do not use when' clause only mentions exploration and auth/configuration scenarios, directing to x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion, but fails to compare against other streaming tools such as x_api_stream_posts_firehose, x_api_stream_posts_sample10, or x_api_stream_posts_sample. Thus, no guidance is given for choosing among streaming alternatives.

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