Search Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is light. It adds the key contextual detail that only 'public posts' are searched, which is valuable scoping information not present in the annotations. No contradictions exist, and the description aligns with the read-only hint.

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?

A single, precise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core function (search) and the resource (public posts), and the keyword mechanism is immediately clear. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, full schema coverage, useful annotations (read-only, open-world), and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states the core behavior and scope ('public posts'), and no additional behavioral details are necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema fully defines 'query' and 'limit' with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search public posts by keyword.' It identifies a specific verb (search), resource (public posts), and mechanism (keyword). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like search_groups or search_people, the resource 'public posts' provides sufficient distinction for most cases.

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 implies usage ('search public posts') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or mention of sibling tools for specific scenarios (e.g., searching a user's posts with get_user_posts). The context is minimal and relies on the agent to infer.

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