socials_get_post_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the Pro access requirement, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint, and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it does not mention rate limits, return format, or other side effects, leaving a transparency gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. The second sentence adds the Pro access requirement without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, so the description must convey enough about the return value. It states 'detailed context including replies' but remains vague about what else the context includes or how replies are structured. For a simple tool this is adequate but not fully complete.

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% with both 'platform' and 'post_url' clearly described in the schema. The description mentions 'specific post', which aligns with 'post_url', but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('detailed context for a specific post') and scopes it further with 'including replies'. This distinguishes it from feed-level tools like socials_get_feed, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it lacks full sibling 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 context of when to use this tool is clear: to retrieve detailed context and replies for a single post. The 'Requires Pro access' statement adds a prerequisite but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it's a 4 rather than 5.

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