reddit_lead_monitor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'filtering out noise' and finding 'high-intent leads,' which hints at output behavior, but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with two sentences that directly address purpose and usage. It avoids unnecessary words and is front-loaded with the core function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from guidelines for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a search tool. It covers the high-level purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and error handling. The schema handles parameters well, but overall context is adequate with clear gaps that could hinder effective tool use.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only implying that 'keywords' are for 'buyers' or specific discussions. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 purpose: 'Find high-intent leads or brand mentions while filtering out noise.' It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'leads or brand mentions,' and distinguishes it from noise filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'reddit_fast_search' beyond implying a focus on 'buyers' or specific discussions.

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 provides some usage context: 'Use this when the user wants to find 'buyers' or specific discussions.' This implies when to use it but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tool 'reddit_fast_search.' The guidance is present but incomplete for optimal decision-making.

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