x_api_stream_posts_firehose_pt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only risk, explains auth resolution via scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and credentialKey, lists common failures, and gives an expected response shape. This goes well beyond a minimal description, though it omits streaming-specific behavior like pagination or connection persistence.

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, but it is somewhat verbose and repetitive (e.g., 'Risk: read-only' is repeated in the safety warning, and 'Use when' repeats the purpose). It is front-loaded with the key action, but not every sentence earns its place.

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 stream tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth prerequisites, environment selection, parameter formats, failure conditions, safety, and an example. It leaves a few gaps (e.g., semantics of partition, stream behavior), but overall it is comprehensive enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 zero descriptions, so the description compensates by listing formats for backfill_minutes, partition, start_time, end_time, and explaining the environment-selection behavior for scoped parameters. It covers most parameters but omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType, and does not explain the semantic meaning of 'partition' despite marking it required.

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 a clear verb and resource ('Stream Portuguese Posts'), which distinguishes it from sibling language-specific streams. However, it does not explicitly mention 'firehose' or clarify whether 'Portuguese' refers to language or region, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tautological, but the 'Do not use when' section provides meaningful exclusions and recommends x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also lists prerequisite and follow-up tools, giving some guidance, though it does not explicitly differentiate among language-specific stream tools.

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