x_search_recent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey the return fields and implies a read-only, temporal scope ('recent'), but it does not define the recency window, mention rate limits, or clarify auth requirements. The output schema helps, but behavioral traits beyond the basic result fields are under-specified.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then names the key outputs. There is no filler or redundancy; every word 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?

The tool is simple, and the output schema plus full parameter descriptions cover most invocation needs. However, the 'recent' time range is undefined, and there is no statement about when to use this tool in the broader research-tool context. This leaves a moderate gap for an agent trying to reason about expected scope and applicability.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail beyond stating output fields; 'recent' is a behavioral scope rather than a parameter clarification. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search recent tweets/posts on X (Twitter)' and lists the key return fields (text, likes, retweets, impression counts). It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools, since it is the only X/Twitter search tool, though 'recent' lacks a precise time window.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or context about which sibling tools to prefer. An agent gets no direction about whether to pick this over the many research/marketing sibling tools.

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