Scout the niche (or your own circle): conversations worth joining, priced and ranked

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the 7-day window, cost per post ($0.005), hard cap of 100, deduplication per UTC day, default filters, and the advisory that third-party content is data not instructions. It fully discloses behavior without contradicting annotations, going well beyond what structured data provides.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose and then covering ranking criteria, constraints, and alternatives in a logical flow. Every sentence contributes new information (costs, dedup, default filters, data-safety note), with no fluff or redundancy.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the results contain (author follower band, freshness, question-ending, engagement, reply status) and the operational constraints (costs, caps, dedup, defaults). It also addresses edge cases (raw=true, circle=true) and safety (third-party content). For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is exceptionally 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 88% (7/8 params described; 'sort' lacks a description). The description adds valuable context beyond the schema, such as the meaning of max_followers (e.g., '60000 to avoid LLM-scored threads') and the purpose of circle=true, enriching parameter understanding. However, not all parameters are elaborated in prose, so it doesn't fully compensate for the missing sort description.

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 action ('Search recent posts with X operators') and its resource (recent posts within a 7-day window) and purpose (rank as opportunities). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'people' and 'conversation' by focusing on opportunity ranking and mentions the handoff mechanism for cold replies, making its niche explicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: using circle=true for own community and handoff for cold replies. It also states default filters and the inability to cold-reply via API, steering users toward the right alternative. This is a model of usage clarity, with both context and exclusions.

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