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

The description discloses that results are sorted newest first, which is a behavioral trait not in annotations (none provided). It also mentions billing per page, adding cost transparency. However, it doesn't describe what the response contains (e.g., post details, author info) or whether it includes nested data, but with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and ordering, and the second provides a crucial usage constraint (exactly one of url or post_id). It is front-loaded with the action, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit use-case guidance, but overall it's efficient.

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?

The description is fairly complete for this tool: it tells the agent what it does, the ordering, the essential parameter constraint, and cost implications. With no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe return structure, but that is a minor gap. It adequately covers the necessary context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the mutual exclusivity (exactly one of url or post_id) which is useful beyond the schema. It also mentions the default pages behavior indirectly via schema, but the description doesn't further clarify parameter formatting beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool retrieves quote posts for a Bluesky post, ordered newest first, and specifies the input requirement (exactly one of url or post_id). It is distinct from siblings like bluesky_post_details (which gets individual post details) and bluesky_post_comments (which gets comments), so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

The description explicitly says to provide exactly one of url or post_id, which is a key usage rule. It also includes a note about billing per page, which helps agents understand usage context. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool over alternatives like bluesky_post_likes or bluesky_post_reposts, though the naming and purpose are fairly clear.

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