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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it omits images and costs 20 credits, which matters for tool selection. It does not detail outputs, but that is partly covered by comparison to read_post.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler. The compatibility note, preferred alternative, and credit cost are all front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with annotations and a sibling relationship, the description covers the essential selection context: what it is relative to read_post, why it exists, and its cost. Because there is no output schema, it relies on read_post for return-value understanding, which is acceptable given the explicit comparison.

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 both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying a post URL and image omission.

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 identifies the tool by relation to the sibling read_post and specifies the key difference: it omits images. It also signals legacy/compatibility status, though it does not directly describe what the analysis returns beyond that comparison.

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?

It explicitly says "Prefer read_post" and explains that this tool is "kept for compatibility," giving a clear when-not-to-use condition and naming the preferred alternative. An agent can route between the two tools without inference.

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