search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the 7-day recency window for posts and the fact that results are billed per post returned, which is important cost/limit context not derivable from schema or annotations.

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?

Very tight, front-loaded to the search modes with the billing caveat attached where relevant. No wasted sentences, though it is arguably terse enough to omit useful detail.

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?

Covers the two search modes and the key constraint (7-day window, billing). With read-only annotations present and 88% schema coverage, the gaps are minor—pagination via next_token and return shape are unaddressed, but no output schema exists to require that.

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 88%, so the schema already documents types, ranges, enum values, and query syntax; the description adds the posts 7-day window but little else. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

'Search X' states a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes its two modes explicitly (type=posts vs type=users). It does not differentiate from siblings like get_posts, get_timeline, or get_users, so it falls short of 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?

Usage is implied via the type enum descriptions and a cost-oriented hint ('keep max_results small'), which helps bound usage. However there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_posts/get_timeline/get_users, so it stays at an implied level.

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