Search Reddit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add extra behavioral context. It does so by disclosing the credit cost ('Spends about a credit.') and the exact return shape (compact JSON with fields), which are not covered by annotations. This adds meaningful behavioral detail without contradicting the 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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and endpoint, then covering return format and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 search tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential points: purpose, return payload structure, and cost. It omits details like rate limits or pagination, but these are minor for a simple search tool and the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are already documented. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it only reiterates the general use case. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 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: 'Reddit keyword search' with the endpoint, and clarifies its purpose as mining customer language for ad hooks. It is clearly distinct from other sibling search tools by platform, and the 'top-ranked' note signals its preferred status.

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 gives a use case (mining customer words for ad hooks and copy) but does not explicitly state when to choose Reddit over sibling search tools like search_tiktok or search_youtube. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or exclusions, relying on the user to infer platform relevance.

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