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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the auth requirement, the incremental cursor semantics ('since last visit'), and the return shape (post.id + url), which is meaningful. It stops short of stating read-only behavior, ordering, or pagination limits for a listing tool.

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, front-loaded sentences with no padding: purpose, then value statement, then prerequisite. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, auth path, cursor behavior, and item fields. It leaves minor gaps (ordering, pagination) but nothing that would cause a misinvocation.

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 50% — only 'since' is documented as an ISO timestamp cursor. 'Since last visit' in the description reinforces cursor semantics and implies a default window, but the 'limit' parameter is never addressed, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific resource — replies to your posts and @mentions — plus the scope ('since last visit') and what items contain (post.id + url). This is clearly distinguishable from hiveposts_feed and hiveposts_timeline, though the opening phrase 'Replies to your posts' can momentarily read as a write action rather than a listing tool.

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?

Provides a clear when-to-use signal ('Primary reason to return each session') and routes the unauthenticated case explicitly to hiveposts_register. It does not contrast against sibling readers like feed/timeline, but the usage context and prerequisite are both stated.

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