Search recent X posts about a topic

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

With only readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive annotations, the description carries useful extra behavioral context: the mode-dependent return (needs_browser + URLs vs observed posts) and the warning 'Never treat a plan as tweets.' It still omits auth requirements and rate limits, but adds genuine value beyond the 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?

Roughly four short sentences with the entry-point guidance front-loaded and no filler. The closing caution about plans is dense but earns its place as an agent safeguard.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the mode branching and the next call but leaves intent/advances, language and includeReplies unexplained, and gives only partial insight into return values. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 67%, so the schema already documents days, sort, limit, topic, language and rawQuery. The description reinforces the 'Latest' sort and 'harness' mode in prose but says nothing about the undocumented enum parameters mode, intent and includeReplies, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 opening 'Start here for X/Twitter research' states the tool's role as the entry-point search for recent X posts, and the title supplies the verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes itself from the sibling x_collect_posts by naming it as the downstream step rather than a competitor, though the search nature is more implied than stated.

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?

It explicitly says to start here and then, in harness mode, to use YOUR browser and call x_collect_posts, which routes the agent to the alternative. However, it does not describe when x_collect_posts or x_get_status should be called instead, nor the conditions under which each mode is appropriate.

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