Search Threads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing the cost ('Spends about a credit') and the exact return format (compact JSON fields per post), which is useful behavioral context not present in the 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?

Two tight sentences front-load the purpose and endpoint, then deliver return format and cost. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence 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 description compensates for the lack of an output schema by specifying the per-post JSON fields. It also covers cost and use case, which is sufficient for a low-complexity read-only tool. Minor gaps like rate limits and pagination details remain, but they are not critical given the schema already documents limit defaults.

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%: both parameters (`query` and `limit`) have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('Organic Threads keyword search'), and an endpoint, with an explicit use case ('trend + voice research'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_threads_keyword', which appears to serve a nearly identical purpose, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 the intended context ('short-form text/social posts for trend + voice research') but does not mention when to avoid using it or name any alternatives. There is no explicit guidance about choosing this over search_threads_keyword, search_instagram_hashtag, or other search tools.

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