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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: reposts are excluded, next_cursor pages backward through the feed, and the call costs $0.01 via x402 with payment passed in _meta["x402/payment"]. That payment mechanics detail is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot express. The only gap is no comment on rate limits or what 'not found / no match not charged' returns.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the purpose before moving to return fields and pricing. No sentence is wasted, though the pricing/payment clauses packed into the same breath make it slightly crowded.

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 carries the return-value burden and does list returned fields (text, likes, replies, reposts, language, media, time, URL) plus pagination. The referenced 'shared social schema' is not defined anywhere, leaving a small ambiguity about the exact field shape.

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 100%, so handle formats, limit range, and cursor semantics are already documented. The description restates the handle formats and says next_cursor pages back through the feed, adding modest confirmation but no new syntax or constraints beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: the latest public posts and replies of one Bluesky account, with an explicit exclusion (reposts left out) and a precise definition of what a handle may be. This distinguishes it from bluesky_profile (account metadata) and bluesky_search (cross-account search) without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'one Bluesky account' suggests single-account feed browsing versus searching, but no sibling is named and no condition is given for choosing this over bluesky_search or bluesky_profile. The billing notes ('bad input is free') are policy, not selection guidance.

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