Search Threads by Keyword

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is already known. The description adds the important behavioral trait that search results are scoped to the authenticated user's content and public threads, which is 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?

The description is three focused elements: the main purpose, an argument list, and a scope note. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, parameter meaning, and a key limitation. No output schema exists, and the description does not explicitly state what the return value is, but for a simple search tool this is a minor gap. Overall it is adequately 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 coverage is 50% (q and response_format have descriptions). The description compensates for the missing threads_user_id parameter by explaining it is 'for auth context', and adds that limit is 'Max results' with a default. This meaningfully adds to 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 starts with 'Searches Threads posts by keyword', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like threads_get_posts or threads_get_post, which retrieve posts rather than search by keyword.

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 note about results being limited to the authenticated user's content and public threads provides clear context about the tool's scope. No explicit alternative is named, but there is no other Threads search tool among siblings, so the usage context is sufficient.

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