x_user_posts

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

The annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds that results are a 'bounded sample', which is useful context, but it does not explain pagination/scroll behavior, staleness, or whether some tabs may return empty for certain profiles.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, earning high marks for conciseness. The phrasing is slightly awkward and the sentence is terse enough that it misses opportunities to add usage/parameter context.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description leaves important invocation details ambiguous—especially maxScrolls behavior and the return shape. The annotations mitigate safety concerns but do not make the tool fully self-explanatory.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It only maps tab to the three surfaces and hints at boundedness; it does not clarify the meaning of limit vs maxScrolls, handle format, or how the sampled boundary is determined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource as a profile's Posts, Replies, or Media surface, so an agent can tell it is a content-reading tool rather than a profile-metadata tool. It is slightly awkward grammatically and does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a 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 intended use is implied: call it when you want a bounded sample of a profile's posts, replies, or media. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer x_profile, x_timeline, or x_search instead, and no exclusions are stated.

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