x_api_stream_posts_firehose_ko

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and covers a lot: read-only risk, bearer token requirement, environment-selection behavior via scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, common failure conditions, expected response shape, and a safety warning about sensitive data. It does not clarify streaming-specific behaviors like connection lifetime or rate-limit handling in detail, but the given information is substantial.

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, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the core purpose and groups details logically. Minor redundancy exists: 'Risk: read-only' is repeated in 'Safety warnings,' and the 'Use when' section merely repeats the first sentence.

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's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid amount of context: expected response shape, common failure conditions, prerequisites, and an example. However, not all parameters are covered, and the example is incomplete (missing partition), leaving some gaps for an agent to fully 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 compensate. It explicitly lists formats for backfill_minutes, partition, start_time, and end_time, and explains the role of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, and the provided example lacks the required 'partition' parameter, which could mislead.

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 Korean Posts,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly identifies the tool's function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling firehose tools like x_api_stream_posts_firehose_en or _ja, relying on the 'ko' in the tool name to imply the language focus.

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' line is a tautology ('Stream Korean Posts'), adding no guidance. However, the 'Do not use when' section gives useful exclusions (avoid if auth/config needed or when exploring; prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion), and a recommended prerequisite list is provided. Still, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling language-specific firehose tools.

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