influencer_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes pagination support but does not disclose the return shape, whether multiple pages require cursor iteration, rate-limit implications, or any side effects. For a read-only listing tool the safety profile is implied but never stated to the agent.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It states the core function and the one non-obvious feature (pagination). It could be marginally improved by adding sibling-tool differentiation, but as written it is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin for a tool with this complexity. The description explains pagination but omits observable behavior like field projection defaults, scope meaning, or what a typical response contains. While the schema documents parameters thoroughly, the description fails to convey the tool's overall behavior and integration with influencer-focused workflows.

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%, meaning all 8 parameters are described in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies. The description's 'pagination support' mention lightly reinforces the cursor parameter but doesn't compensate further; the schema already fully documents each parameter.

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 'Get all Amazon Influencer posts with pagination support' uses a specific verb (get) plus resource (Amazon Influencer posts), which is clear and actionable. It correctly differentiates from siblings like influencer_profile (profile data) and influencer_post_products (post-linked products), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The purpose is clear but naming adjacent tools would push it to 5.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't explain when to prefer this over influencer_post_products or other content-retrieval tools, nor does it mention required preconditions (e.g., needing a known influencer_name). The pagination mention hints at a use pattern, but there are no explicit context guidelines or exclusions.

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