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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'allowlisted public' fields are exposed, which is real behavioral context about data filtering. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter note appended after a semicolon. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the 'allowlisted public fields' phrase usefully hints at the response scope. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves username and the interaction of max_chars with the biography only lightly addressed, which is thin for a two-parameter tool.

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 carries the burden. It does explain that max_chars limits the biography, adding meaning beyond the bare 'Max Chars' title and its 1–10000 bounds. username is left unexplained, though its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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 ('Get') and resource ('public profile fields') and adds the meaningful qualifier 'allowlisted', which scopes what is returned. It does not differentiate from siblings like read_post or list_user_posts, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search, read_topic, or list_user_posts. The only hint at a condition is that fields are 'public'/'allowlisted', which is a scope statement rather than usage routing. An agent must infer context entirely.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: offset counts activities from 0, max_chars truncates excerpts, a full page returns next_offset, and the next page may legitimately be empty. Auth/rate-limit behavior is not covered, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose before the pagination and truncation caveats. No wasted words, though the fragmentary phrasing is slightly terse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mention of next_offset plus the possibility of an empty next page gives the pagination context an agent needs. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/username semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains offset (indexed from 0 over activities) and max_chars (per-excerpt character cap), but says nothing about how limit interacts with pagination or the username parameter, leaving two of four parameters undocumented.

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 recent topics/replies by a user', which is a clear read operation on user-scoped content. It implicitly separates from siblings like read_post/read_topic (single-item reads) and search (query-driven), but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating one user's activity, but there is no when-to-use vs search/get_user guidance and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the user must exist).

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful edge-case behavior: missing plugins return [], hidden poll vote counts return null, and plugin metadata has fixed size caps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then offset semantics, then edge cases, with no filler. Mentioning next_offset, which is not in the input schema, introduces minor ambiguity that keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is largely unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately covers raw content, offset semantics, and common edge cases, though max_chars remains undocumented.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains offset/next_offset as character positions and clarifies post_id must be a post ID rather than a topic/post number, but max_chars is left unexplained and next_offset is not an input 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?

States a specific verb 'Read' and resources 'raw Markdown, retorts and polls' for a post ID. The parenthetical 'not a topic/post number' distinguishes it from sibling read_topic without needing to open either schema.

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?

Provides an input-type constraint (post ID, not topic/post number) that implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never names alternative tools or states explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: truncated posts use read_post, and output is Markdown when available else plain text from API HTML. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination termination, but the added context is solid.

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 tight sentences with no filler, leading with the core action and then pagination and truncation details. Efficient 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still explains the output format. Combined with offset/max_chars semantics and the read_post handoff, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though limit remains unexplained.

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 carries the burden. It defines offset ('0-based index in the visible post stream') and max_chars ('limits each post'), but limit and topic_id are left entirely to the schema titles, leaving half the parameters semantically thin.

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+resource ('Read a topic and replies') and distinguishes itself from the sibling read_post by pointing to it for truncated remainder. It could be sharper about what a 'topic' means in this domain, but the scope is clear.

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?

Explains when to use read_post (for the remainder of truncated posts) and clarifies pagination via offset, giving clear context. No explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value with a pagination consumption protocol ('consume next_offset before next_page, reset offset to 0') and a permission-dependent availability note, but says nothing about result shape or rate/limit behavior beyond that.

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?

Dense, telegraphic and front-loaded: purpose first, then the parameter/pagination facts in short clauses. Nearly every clause earns its place, though the offset/next_offset sentence is compressed enough to require a careful read.

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 an 11-parameter search tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers pagination and the highest-risk parameter formats. It omits what order, status and username actually do, leaving meaningful filtering behavior undocumented.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does most of it: date format for after/before, category as ID or slug with parent/child, Discourse syntax for keyword, 1-based page, offset-within-page, and max_chars as per-excerpt limit. limit, order, status and username remain undocumented anywhere.

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+resource ('Search topics/posts'), and the resource scope is plainly broader than the single-item siblings (read_topic, read_post, get_user). It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search vs the sibling lookup tools, and no exclusions. 'Search availability depends on site permissions' is a caveat about feasibility, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer routing on its own.

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