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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation: the data comes from shared memory, the call costs 1 credit, and the required content_id originates from read_post. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the required input and cost. Every sentence contributes operationally useful information with no filler.

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 read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, source, prerequisite parameter, and credit cost. But it omits limit behavior/result count and does not clarify the relationship to the find_similar_posts sibling, leaving some gaps.

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?

The description only reinforces content_id as coming from read_post, which the schema already states. It does not explain the optional limit parameter at all, leaving 50% schema description coverage uncompensated and omitting the result-count semantics an agent would need.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource: posts similar to one already read, drawn from ViralRecast's shared memory. It also establishes the prerequisite of passing a content_id from read_post. However, it does not distinguish this from the similarly named sibling find_similar_posts, leaving some ambiguity.

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 through 'Pass the content_id returned by read_post,' which tells the agent this follows a prior read operation. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no comparison to alternatives such as find_similar_posts.

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