Search Threads posts by keyword

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive; the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the ~20-25 post ceiling per search, cross-keyword de-duplication, failure returned as an error with a run ID, APIFY_TOKEN requirement, and per-post-row billing. That is real context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then constraints, then cost/auth, then error behavior — a sound ordering. It is a single dense paragraph of five sentences; every sentence carries information, though the packing makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted or clearly separated form.

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 10-parameter, zero-required tool with no output schema and no siblings, the description covers output shape, defaults, platform limits, auth, billing, and failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to decide or invoke correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still contributes semantics the schema lacks, notably that a post matched by several keywords is returned once and that default matching is adjacency-based phrase matching. It does not elaborate on less obvious params like state_key or proxy_mode cost implications beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search Threads for keywords') and immediately enumerates the exact output shape (one flat row per post with text, author, publish date, likes, replies, reposts, quotes, link, plus a summary row per keyword). An agent knows precisely what it gets back, not just what it calls.

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 establishes the operating context: public Threads search page, no login or key required, ~20-25 posts per search as a visitor. It explains the default phrase-matching behavior and the de-duplication rule, which effectively tells the agent what to expect. There are no sibling tools to route against, but explicit 'when not to use' guidance is absent.

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