search_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only restates the basic functionality and does not mention read-only behavior, pagination, default ordering, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a search 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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, and the main keyword is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not clarify the scope (e.g., all posts vs. my posts), the output format, or any rate limits. Since there are no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 descriptions cover all 5 parameters with clear explanations (e.g., 'Search keyword or phrase', 'Number of results to return'). The tool description adds no extra detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Search for posts using keywords' clearly states a specific action (search) on a resource (posts) with a mechanism (keywords). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_my_threads or search_by_hashtags, though it does not explicitly differentiate them, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 implies usage for keyword-based post search but does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools. There is no mention of when not to use this tool or which sibling tool to use for hashtag/topic searches, so the guidance is only implied.

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