free_social_media_search

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Returns: Text content with the social media search results.' No disclosure of side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or read-only nature (though likely read-only). Minimal behavioral info.

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 short and includes a parameter list in a docstring style. It is appropriately sized with no unnecessary words, though the structure is flat.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a vague return statement, the description is incomplete. It does not explain valid values for output_format, time_range, or safe_search, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so description adds value by explaining each parameter (e.g., '搜索查询' for query, '安全搜索等级' for safe_search). However, the explanations are basic translations/defaults and do not provide deep semantics.

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 states '社交媒体搜索' which translates to 'social media search', restating the tool name. It lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like 'free_general_search' or 'free_video_search', so the purpose is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools are listed but not mentioned in the description. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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