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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions billing per call and a grouping label. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, mention pagination via cursor, error behavior, or any other side effects. The description offers minimal behavioral insight beyond what is already obvious from the name.

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 a single awkward sentence that mixes the tool's purpose with metadata like 'Group: User Related API.' and 'Billing per call: 1 Credits.' These metadata points are not useful for tool selection and clutter the description. It is not concise because it includes clutter without conveying clear, structured information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (likely a read operation), the description still fails to provide essential context: it does not clearly state what the tool returns, which parameters are required, or how the response is structured. The hint about unique_id or user_id is inadequate. The description is far from complete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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% and the description adds no explanation for count, cursor, user_id, or unique_id. The only hint is that 'unique_id or user_id is not empty', which is a constraint rather than a definition. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents without semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 is a run-on phrase 'get user post videos for latest get user feed' that is ambiguous—it may mean getting a user's published videos or their feed. The title 'user post videos' clarifies somewhat, but the description fails to distinguish from siblings like get_userFavoriteVideo or get_userInfo. It lacks a clear verb+resource structure and reads like a partial thought.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only conditional phrase 'unique_id or user_id is not empty' seems like a parameter requirement, not usage guidance. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools.

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