reddit_subreddit_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers meaningfully: it discloses that a 503 with Retry-After signals throttling and how to respond, and that native-source failures fall back to Redlib while preserving public fields and credit weights. This is genuine operational context beyond the schema. It does not cover general rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens to pagination state on a fallback, so it is strong but not complete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the operational caveats, with no filler. It is slightly dense with internal jargon ('credit weights', 'source.type') that an agent without prior context cannot interpret, which 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a high level ('normalized public posts') and adds unusually useful failure/fallback behavior. The main remaining gap is pagination semantics — the `after` token is never explained in the description and the response shape is only loosely characterized — but nothing critical to invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents sort, time, after, limit, and subreddit, including the 'without r/' convention and the default/clamp behavior for limit. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List Reddit subreddit posts') and clarifies it returns 'normalized public posts from a subreddit.' It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearly identically named sibling reddit_subreddits_posts or from reddit_domain_posts/reddit_search, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve by name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Despite siblings like reddit_search, reddit_subreddits_posts, reddit_domain_posts, and reddit_subreddit_about that could plausibly overlap, the description never says which one to pick or under what conditions, nor does it state prerequisites such as needing a valid subreddit name without r/.

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