x_api_stream_posts_firehose_ja

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of disclosure. It states 'Risk: read-only,' required bearer token, environment-selection behavior, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This is substantial, though it does not delve into streaming connection lifecycle or pagination behavior, which would be useful for a firehose tool.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.), making it scannable. It contains minor redundancy ('Use when: Stream Japanese Posts' repeats the purpose), but every other section adds valuable information without excessive wordiness.

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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers a broad range: purpose, usage, auth prerequisites, environment behavior, parameter constraints, response shape, failure conditions, and safety. It falls short on fully explaining all parameters (e.g., authorizationKey, preferredAuthType) and the exact semantics of streaming, but overall it is nearly complete for a complex API wrapper.

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 description lists parameter formats for backfill_minutes, partition, start_time, and end_time, but these mostly repeat the schema types. It adds meaningful context for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId auth resolution, but omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType semantics. With schema coverage at 0%, the description should compensate further for the remaining six 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 opens with 'Stream Japanese Posts,' which clearly identifies the action (stream) and the resource (Japanese posts). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling firehose tools for other languages (en, ko, pt) and from generic search/stream endpoints.

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 explicitly states 'Use when' and 'Do not use when,' recommending x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, providing clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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