Top posts about any topic, brand or product

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

Even with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: results are organic third-party posts (not brand ads), ranked by views, aggregated across three platforms in one call, and credit/repeat behavior is disclosed. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 long but dense and well-structured: core scope first, then exclusions, then use cases, then cost semantics. Every clause adds information and there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only multi-platform search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, platform scope, exclusions, use cases, and credit cost. It does not describe the exact shape of returned posts, but that is minor because the schema and enumerated platforms already frame the expected result.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance to the `queries` parameter with concrete variant examples ('best X', 'X review', #tag) and credit-per-platform context. The `topic` and `platforms` semantics are mostly restated from the schema, so it does not quite reach a 5.

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 verb-resource pair ('posts people make about a subject') and clarifies scope: organic TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube, ranked by views. It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by excluding brand ads (search_meta_ads / research_ads) and creators (find_creators).

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 guidance is explicit: it names the sibling alternatives to avoid and gives concrete use cases — finding clips worth cloning via clone_video and reading hooks/angles that audiences respond to. An agent can reliably decide when to call this tool versus nearby search and research tools.

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