x_api_stream_posts_sample10

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses read-only risk, required bearer token, environment-selection logic for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, credentialKey behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond the 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 covering usage, risk, permissions, environment behavior, parameters, response, failures, and example. It is somewhat long but appropriately so for a complex tool. The 'Use when' section redundantly repeats the first sentence, which is minor waste, but overall every other sentence adds value.

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 10-parameter schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, environment-selection behavior, response shape, common failure conditions, recommended tools, safety warnings, and an example. This gives an agent sufficient context to decide when and how 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 description explains parameter formats and constraints for backfill_minutes, partition, start_time, and end_time, and clarifies the roles of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in auth resolution. However, it does not explicitly mention authorizationKey or preferredAuthType, leaving those two parameters unexplained despite a schema coverage of 0%. Still, it compensates well for most 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 tool's function: 'Stream 10% sampled Posts.' This is a specific verb (stream) plus resource (Posts) with a sampling rate (10%) that distinguishes it from sibling stream tools like firehose or compliance. The purpose is immediately clear and matches the tool name without being a tautology.

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, naming alternatives like x_schema_discovery and x_query_suggestion for exploration. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools. However, it does not explicitly compare against other Post stream tools (e.g., firehose vs sample10) beyond the name itself, which slightly limits differentiation.

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