search_x

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose something beyond the name: that results are Grok-summarized with original user quotes, which sets expectations for output shape. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result volume, or failure behavior, which are meaningful gaps for an unannotated external-API tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and corpus, then capability and output expectations. Every sentence contributes, though 'Powered by Grok's x_search' is closer to marketing context than actionable guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing returns as summarized results with original quotes. Combined with 100% parameter coverage in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth/limits behavior is left unaddressed.

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 schema already documents query, date bounds, and handles. The description's line 'Supports filtering by date range and specific X handles' restates the schema rather than adding format, syntax, or limit details (the 10-handle cap lives only in the schema). Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Search X (Twitter) for real-time posts, discussions, and trends'), which is concrete and distinguishable from the sibling web-search tools by naming the X/Twitter corpus. It never names the siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather 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?

The phrase 'real-time posts, discussions, and trends' implies the use case (current social sentiment/topics), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no mention of search_web_via_grok or search_combined as alternatives. An agent must infer the routing decision from the corpus name alone.

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