search_opinions_perspective

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by specifying the time windows (1+ year old vs. last 6 months), the platform-dependent behavior, and the side-by-side output structure. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only search tool this is not a significant gap.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with purpose and expected results, and includes a compact Args block. Some default values from the schema are repeated, which is mildly redundant, but every sentence contributes useful information about behavior or parameters.

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 4-parameter search tool with an output schema, this description covers the key aspects an agent needs: time-window semantics, platform-specific caveats, parameter formats, and routing behavior. It does not explicitly explain when to prefer this tool over the sibling search_opinions, but the core calling context is complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does thoroughly. Each parameter is explained with meaningful detail: platforms supports 'auto', limit is scoped as 'per time period per platform', and routing_hints includes a concrete format with examples. This adds substantial value beyond the bare property names in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for opinions with a Then vs Now perspective,' and then explains the concrete output: historical and recent opinions shown side by side. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_opinions tool, which presumably lacks the temporal comparison angle.

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 gives useful context on when the tool works well ('Works best with HackerNews, Reddit, and Stack Exchange') and explicitly notes platform limitations ('4chan and Telegram return current data only'). It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like get_thread_opinions, but it provides clear operational guidance for using the tool effectively.

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