Find relevant posts across groups

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces these with 'Read-only — it finds leads, it does not contact anyone' and adds meaningful behavioral details: how scoring works (relevant topic + asking for help), penalties for self-promotion and resolved threads, and the demand/supply group distinction.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the most actionable instruction ('Omit group_urls to sweep...'). The 2026-08-01 anecdote is illustrative but could be trimmed; overall, nearly 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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (ranked leads with plain-English reasons), the scoring criteria, group selection strategy, and its read-only safety profile. It fully covers the tool's complexity and leaves no major gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful strategic context for key parameters like group_urls ('Omit to sweep the combined feed... fastest way') and search_terms ('Much faster, but only finds what Facebook's search surfaces'), but most parameter semantics remain in the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool's action: scanning Facebook Groups and returning posts likely to be genuine service requests, ranked with plain-English reasons. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_in_group and browse_feed by emphasizing cross-group lead scoring and demand-side targeting.

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?

Usage is explicitly directed: omit group_urls for a combined feed, target demand-side groups rather than developer/freelancer groups, and use search_terms for faster but limited search. A concrete example ('a 24K-member WordPress *developer* group returned zero leads') reinforces when not to use it.

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