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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it does disclose that results are ordered best post first and that per-post figures come with totals, which tells the agent it is a read-only aggregation. It never states permission/auth requirements, behavior when no posts exist in the window, or whether results are paginated or capped in count.

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 front-loaded sentence listing the resource, the metrics, and the sort order with zero filler. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields and ordering is exactly the right level of detail. Only minor gaps remain, such as the result cap and the empty-result case.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'days' parameter is fully documented with its default and maximum, so the schema does the work. The description only implies a lookback window via 'recent' and adds no format or boundary detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names the specific resource (the user's recent X posts) and the exact measures returned (views, likes, replies per post plus totals), which is far more specific than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but none of draft_post/list_drafts/queue_post/list_ideas compete in scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active X connection. The only contextual cue is the word 'recent', which the schema parameter already handles.

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