x_search_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results are live-extracted from the search timeline but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when no results match. For a scraping-style tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too thin given the tool's behavioral opacity.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter detail added, the description leaves the agent without a picture of what the returned "extracted results" contain or how large/streamed they are. For a search tool in a crowded sibling set, this is under-specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the query and limit parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 1-20 range for limit. The description adds no syntax, query-language, or filtering details beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Search X posts") and the return nature ("extracted live results from the search timeline"), which distinguishes it from x_get_timeline and x_get_profile_posts. However it does not explicitly name or contrast with its closest siblings x_search_profiles and x_search_communities, leaving differentiation to inference.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With siblings like x_search_profiles, x_search_communities, x_get_timeline, and x_research_topic present, an agent gets no routing signal for choosing this tool.

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