social_sentiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does add real behavior: the data sources and the fact that posts are relevance-screened only when TYPESAFE_API_KEY is set. It does not say what happens without the key, whether results are paginated or capped, or any rate limits, so behavioral disclosure is partial.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the sources and the time-window semantics front-loaded before the conditional screening caveat. Every clause carries information the schema does not.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers sources, windowing, and the screening condition. Gaps remain around the undefined `as_of` format/null behavior and the consequences of running without TYPESAFE_API_KEY, which matters for a tool whose output quality depends on it.

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, and it does define the key relationship: `days` is the window measured backwards from `as_of`. Still missing is the format of `as_of` (ISO string? date only?) and what the null default means, so it does not fully cover all three 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 names a specific resource (StockTwits messages and Reddit posts about the ticker), which is far more informative than the opaque name social_sentiment. It implicitly separates itself from news siblings by naming social platforms, but never explicitly contrasts with company_news or global_news.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative among the 23 siblings. The time-window phrasing implies a recency-sentiment use case, but the agent must infer that this is the tool for social chatter versus the news tools.

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