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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results return actor profiles plus a cursor for pagination, which is modest extra context, but it does not go beyond what the output schema likely conveys.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the scope and identifier format are front-loaded before the pagination and usage notes. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail, and the description correctly stays brief while noting actor profiles and cursor pagination. Complete for this tool's complexity, though it could note the public/no-auth access assumption.

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% with three well-described parameters (uri, limit, cursor). The description reinforces the 'at://' URI format but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List public Bluesky accounts that reposted a post') and pins the identifier format ('at://' post URI). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like bluesky_post_likes and bluesky_post_quotes, which retrieve other interaction types.

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 closing clause 'use this to inspect repost activity for one post' gives an implicit usage context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternative sibling tools (likes, quotes, thread) for adjacent interaction-inspection needs.

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