search_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the case-insensitive ILIKE search across text and searchable columns, and describes what the tool returns (posts with text snippets). It could mention more about error handling or if it is read-only, but overall it is fairly transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear summary followed by an args list. It is concise and only includes relevant information, though the phrase 'Searches across text column and all searchable columns (ILIKE, case-insensitive)' could be slightly more succinct.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the input parameters sufficiently and includes usage constraints. However, it omits any mention of error conditions or performance considerations, which would make it more 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all four parameters, including the meaning of query_id, text_query, filters (with optional keys like platform, brand, sentiment, category, date range), and limit. This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states that the tool searches posts by keyword and/or filters and returns text snippets. It specifies the search mechanism (ILIKE, case-insensitive across columns). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_voc or get_ranked_posts, so it loses a point.

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?

It indicates that either text_query or filters must be provided, which is a useful guideline. However, it does not provide when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_voc for different search behavior), nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations beyond the limit.

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