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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: page size cap (50), newest-first ordering, returned fields, and per-page billing at $0.003, which matters for an agent managing cost. No pagination token or rate-limit detail, but nothing is misstated.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences that front-load the operation and input constraint, then the return contents, ordering, page cap and price. Every clause earns its place 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?

With no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description must explain returns and it does (text, author, engagement metrics, media), plus pagination, ordering and billing. An agent has everything needed to invoke and budget the call 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 parameters are already documented; the baseline is 3. The description adds the mutual-exclusivity rule ('provide exactly one' of url/post_id) that the schema does not state, which is meaningful semantic value.

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?

Specific verb+resource: retrieves posts that quote a given Bluesky post, ordered newest first. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like bluesky_post_comments, bluesky_post_likes and bluesky_post_reposts, which return different engagement sets.

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?

States the input constraint clearly: provide exactly one of URL or AT URI post_id, which routes the caller correctly. No explicit when-not or named alternative, but the context is unambiguous for this endpoint.

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