get_profiles_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait ('1 credit per call'), which is useful for cost awareness. However, it lacks details on other aspects such as rate limits, error handling, or response format, making it incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and cost implication. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and cost, but for a data retrieval tool, it could benefit from mentioning response structure or limitations (e.g., post format, time range). Without output schema, some context on return values would enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have mentioned implicit assumptions (e.g., profile identification method). Given the baseline of 4 for 0 parameters, this is scored accordingly.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('last 50 posts of a profile'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_profile_post_and_comments' or 'get_profile_recent_activity_time', which might also retrieve profile-related posts or activities, leaving some ambiguity in differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'get_profile_post_and_comments', 'get_profile_recent_activity_time'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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