threads_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important API rate limit (500 queries per 7 days) and specifies the return format (JSON string with id, text, timestamp, permalink). It does not explicitly state auth requirements, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Search.'

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a rate-limit note, then Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant content.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and a significant rate limit. It is sufficiently complete, though it does not cover any search syntax or pagination beyond the 'limit' parameter.

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 does, by explicitly defining 'query' as the search string and 'limit' as max results with a default of 25. This adds meaning beyond the schema's title-only properties.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Threads posts') with a clear scope: 'posts matching a keyword query.' It is distinct from sibling tools like threads_get_posts or threads_get_post_details, which imply non-search retrieval.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for keyword-based search. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing makes the use case obvious. The rate limit note also provides relevant usage context.

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