search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the return type (markdown), product filter options, and advanced query operator syntax, which go beyond the structured 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 concise and front-loaded: the main function is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact list of query options and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and no unnecessary filler exists.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return value structure. It provides enough operational guidance for a search tool with moderate complexity, including product choices and query syntax. It could mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema and examples cover the essentials.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It successfully clarifies the 'query' parameter through operator examples and explains the 'product' enum values. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, but its default, minimum, and maximum are already fully specified in the schema, so no additional semantics are needed.

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 action ('Search X') and the resource ('posts'), and specifies the output format ('as markdown'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_tweet or user_timeline, which target specific tweets or timelines.

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 concrete usage context by listing product values and example X operators, making it clear how to construct queries. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the sibling context makes the appropriate use apparent.

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