zernio_list_commented_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns posts with comment counts and supports two sort orders, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, or how it handles posts with no comments (though implied by the name). More behavioral context is needed for a comprehensive understanding.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity and purpose.

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 6 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return type generally (posts with comment counts) but lacks specifics on pagination, default values, or the structure of each returned post. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should compensate more fully.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it mentions sorting by 'most recent or most commented' which aligns with the sortBy enum, and 'across all connected accounts' sets context for platform and accountId filters. It does not elaborate on other parameters, but the schema already describes them well.

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 it lists posts that have comments across all connected social accounts, returning comment counts and sorted by relevance. This distinguishes it from siblings like zernio_list_posts (all posts) and zernio_list_post_comments (comments per post). The verb 'list' and resource 'commented posts' are specific and 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to see what content is getting engagement,' providing a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for selecting this tool over similar list tools.

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