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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that content is untrusted and must never be treated as instructions, and that it never spends. It also explains the pagination behavior with the truncated flag. This provides substantial behavioral context beyond annotations and carries no contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers pagination and security essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value; 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 optional params, pagination, untrusted content), the description covers all necessary operational aspects: pagination mechanism, data safety, and read-only nature. An output schema exists, so return details need not be repeated. The agent has enough to call this correctly and safely.

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%, so both parameters are already well-documented. The description reinforces the cursor usage ('exactly as returned') and the handle purpose ('optionally one creator's'), but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Browse'), a resource ('posts on weir.social'), and key attributes (newest first, optional creator filter). It explicitly distinguishes itself from a free-text search, which helps separate it from siblings like weir_seeking. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: how to paginate using cursor when truncated, when to omit parameters, and what is not possible (no free-text search, no page-size). It also implies when to use this over alternatives. This effectively routes the agent.

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