social_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: no rate-limit blocks, no API keys required, and the return format (structured JSON and LLM-ready Markdown).

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core capability and source list are front-loaded, and the return-format/practical-constraint details follow immediately after.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with annotated safety profile, the description covers purpose, sources, and return format. With no output schema, it compensates by naming the return formats, though it doesn't describe result structure or pagination behavior.

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 all three parameters (limit, query, platform) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Search') and resource ('live social media discussions') and names source platforms (Reddit, HackerNews, tech forums), which implicitly distinguishes it from academic_search and web_extract. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent away from those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 'for any topic, product, or trend' gives implied usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer that academic queries belong to academic_search.

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