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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it discloses the scoring formula (replies x5, quotes x5, reposts x1, likes x0.5; seeds = units x10), the 'rule zero' threshold under 2.0, the cutoff date after which older units/views are retained, and the PARKED/retroactive-credit behavior for unlinked handles. It also states 'Public, no auth', covering the auth requirement. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from 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?

Every sentence carries real information, but the fragment-heavy all-caps style is hard to parse and the retirement-date parenthetical is front-loaded ahead of the actual purpose. Dense but not efficiently structured; a reader must work to extract the operative guidance.

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 output schema, the description fully specifies return contents (each post, what it earned, its units, why it scored) plus edge cases (unlinked handles, pre-2026-10-02 posts) and auth posture. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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 0% for the single 'who' parameter, so the description carries the burden — and it does, specifying that 'who' is a Rokha page handle or an X handle. It doesn't clarify handle syntax, casing, or error behavior for malformed handles, so it stops short of 5.

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 concrete resource and scope: 'THE ROWS BEHIND AN ACCOUNT'S SEED TOTAL', listing each recent post with earnings and scoring rationale. It explicitly distinguishes itself from seeds_explain ('then drill into a row with seeds_explain'), so an agent can separate the two. The all-caps jargon ('the Tailwind') slightly obscures the opening line, keeping it below 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('Use for "justify my last posts" or a disputed total') and names the follow-up alternative, seeds_explain, for row-level drill-down. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context for invocation is clear and actionable.

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