get_user_search_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns 'actual social media posts' and 'raw posts', which adds context about output content. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: no mention of permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'raw' entails (e.g., format, size). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second clarifies the return value. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return type ('actual social media posts') but lacks details on format, structure, or potential errors. For a tool that presumably fetches dynamic data, more context on behavior and output is needed to be fully helpful.

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 the single parameter 'search_id' as a positive integer. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 purpose: 'Get raw posts from a user search' specifies the action (get) and resource (posts from user search). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_user_search' (likely metadata) and 'get_keyword_search_posts' (different search type). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_user_searches' or 'user_search', leaving minor ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a search_id from another tool), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_keyword_search_posts' or 'get_user_search'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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