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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, or return shape. The 'List' framing implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the sort/time interaction it does mention is already stated verbatim in the schema descriptions.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the two filtering behaviors. No filler or redundancy in phrasing.

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 simple, optional-parameter listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essentials. It lacks any note on what a post record contains (no output schema exists) and gives no indication of pagination expectations beyond the cursor field, leaving minor gaps.

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 every parameter (t, sort, after, limit) is already documented in the schema, including the sort=top constraint on t. The description repeats that constraint without adding format, default, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 posts from Liberty.win') plus the optional sort/filter dimensions, which is clear enough to distinguish it from write siblings like create_post or vote_post. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other read siblings such as get_trending or get_community_posts, which also return post listings.

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 explains what each sort mode means ('hot' for trending, 'new' for latest, 'top' for highest scored) and the conditional constraint that t only applies with sort='top'. It gives no guidance on when to pick this tool over get_trending, get_community_posts, or get_post, so usage is only implied.

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