Search public Threads posts

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond those annotations: the 2,200-query rolling limit and the threads_keyword_search permission requirement. No contradiction with 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?

Two tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the core action, and the second bundles the quota and permission constraints without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the essential call context: purpose, quota, and permissions. The schema handles all parameters. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain the expected return shape or pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter's own schema description.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'keyword' in the purpose statement, which maps to q. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, resource, and method: 'Search public Threads posts by keyword.' This is clear and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling search_topic_tag, but 'keyword' versus 'topic tag' is implied.

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 useful context: a quota cap and a permission requirement. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives like search_topic_tag or get_posts. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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