get_user_search_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that oversized responses are truncated and includes the truncated flag. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies so), potential failure modes, or any authentication requirements. The truncation detail adds value but other behavioral aspects remain unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a concise note about truncation. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description states the return type (social media posts) and truncation behavior, but it does not clarify what 'raw posts' entails or the exact response structure. Given the lack of output schema, more detail about the returned data would improve completeness, though the description is adequate for a basic retrieval tool.

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?

The input schema has full coverage for the single parameter 'search_id' with description 'User search ID.' The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter's purpose is fully documented in 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get raw posts from a user search' and elaborates with 'Returns the actual social media posts from the searched user profile.' This provides a specific verb+resource and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_search (likely metadata) and get_keyword_search_posts (keyword variant).

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 implies usage by defining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it doesn't contrast with get_user_search or get_keyword_search_posts. The context is clear but limited to the intended operation.

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