search_replies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the case-insensitive behavior and the return fields (username and text), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention any side effects, or clarify scope (e.g., all threads or a specific thread).

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 extremely concise, with the primary purpose stated in the first sentence and a simple args section. No redundant information is present; 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 with one parameter, and the description provides the essential information: what it does, the parameter meaning, and return structure. Given the expected output schema, it does not need to elaborate further. Minor gaps like scope or sorting are not critical for basic usage.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'keyword' parameter as 'the search term to filter replies by'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema field name, though it could be more detailed (e.g., accepted formats or behaviors).

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 states it searches Threads replies by a keyword, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_all_replies' by focusing on keyword filtering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_all_replies' or 'get_reply_stats'. The description simply describes the function without contextualizing it among sibling tools.

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