Search by Keyword

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

With readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false in the annotations, the description usefully explains the discrepancy: this is a read-like POST that does not publish, but it consumes paid API credits and needs confirm=true, and it caps at 10 results per request due to API limits. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its result set, then filters, then the credit/limit constraints. No filler, though the credit/limit sentence packs several constraints together.

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?

For a credit-consuming POST with no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields (caption text, like_count, reshare_count, direct_reply_count, user info, image_versions2), the 10-result cap, and the confirm/credit requirement. Date format expectations for start_date/end_date remain unspecified.

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 all six parameters are already documented (query, trim, account, confirm, start_date, end_date). The description restates the date and trim filters but adds no syntax, format, or date-format detail, and never mentions the account parameter, so it lands at the baseline.

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 and resource ('Searches Threads for posts matching a keyword') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from threads_search_users and threads_posts without needing the schema. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 notes optional start_date/end_date and trim filters and the confirm requirement, which implies when the tool is usable, but it never says when to choose this over threads_search_users, threads_posts, or other keyword-search siblings. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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