telemost_posts_search

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

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent read-only behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is 'Paid per call in USDC from your wallet,' searches only posts from the last 14 days, and supports extended query syntax. These details go beyond the structured annotation flags and inform the agent about cost and time constraints, though it still omits specifics like pagination or result format.

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, with the primary purpose in the first clause. It packs essential information (use case, post window, payment, pricing reference) into two sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use case, search scope, time limit, and cost model, which are the most critical contextual points. However, it lacks explanation of return structure and parameter behaviors like defaults or region selection, making it not fully complete for a complex search 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify parameters, but it only vaguely references 'extended query syntax' which likely maps to the 'extended' parameter. It does not explain 'query', 'limit', 'region', or 'extended' directly. While some parameter names are self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, leaving the agent without enough guidance for parameter values.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Telegram post search and social listening: full-text search over posts across public channels.' It also specifies the scope (keywords, brand or topic) and differentiates itself by mentioning 'extended query syntax' and the 14-day post window, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like telemost_messages or telemost_search.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Brand monitoring and market research.' It also mentions the 14-day window as a temporal constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, though it does reference telemost_catalog for pricing, implying a cost consideration.

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