Search

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

With readOnlyHint=false the description usefully explains the apparent contradiction by clarifying that 'Read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms,' and it adds the credit-consumption and confirm=true requirements plus pagination via the after token and the trim lighter-response option. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though rate limits and error behavior are still unstated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by result-field detail and operational constraints. It is dense but each clause carries information, with only minor redundancy against the schema in the sort/timeframe sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the post and comment result fields. Combined with the credit/confirm constraint and pagination note, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the absence of any explicit sibling comparison leaves a small gap.

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 all eight parameters. The description largely restates schema semantics (sort constraints, timeframe, after, trim) rather than adding format or interaction detail, so the baseline 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?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Searches... for posts or comments matching a query') and scopes it to 'all of Reddit,' which implicitly sets it apart from reddit_subreddit_search. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

It gives real routing conditions: filter selects posts vs comments, comment search supports relevance/new/top, timeframe applies to post searches only, and confirm=true is required. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over reddit_subreddit_search, reddit_subreddit_posts, or other search tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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