Search Threads by keyword

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'PUBLIC' scope and emphasizes non-destructive search, but does not disclose additional behavior like pagination, rate limits, or result structure. Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, followed by use cases and a sibling distinction. Highly efficient and well-structured.

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 straightforward search tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context: what it searches, when to use it, and how it differs from search_threads. It does not detail result format or pagination, but the implied output (matching posts) suffices given tool simplicity.

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 parameters q and searchType are fully documented. The description mentions 'keyword or topic' which aligns with q, but adds no extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool searches PUBLIC Threads posts for a keyword or topic, with explicit use cases (competitor listening, customer language). It also distinguishes itself from search_threads, which reads a specific profile, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use this tool (keyword-based search of public posts) and explicitly contrasts it with search_threads, which targets a specific profile. This guides the agent on appropriate selection among siblings.

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