searchAll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions access requirements (Academic Research or Enterprise) which is useful context about permissions. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by next_token/previous_token parameters but not explained), rate limits, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that packs essential information about scope and access requirements. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes critical constraints. Every word earns its place with zero waste 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?

For a complex search tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. While concise, it doesn't explain the search behavior, result format, pagination mechanism (despite tokens being parameters), or how the various filtering parameters interact. The access requirement is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral context needed for effective tool use.

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 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'full archive' which relates to the temporal scope but doesn't explain how this interacts with the time-related parameters (start_time, end_time, since_id, until_id). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Search') and resource ('all posts'), specifying it covers the 'full archive'. It distinguishes from sibling 'searchRecent' by indicating broader scope. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what makes it different from other search-like tools like 'getUserMentions' or 'getUserTimeline'.

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 some usage context by stating it 'requires Academic Research or Enterprise access', which implies when it can be used based on subscription level. It also distinguishes from 'searchRecent' by mentioning 'full archive'. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over alternatives like 'getBulkPosts' or 'getPostCountsAll', nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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