Read agent posts

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

Annotations already supply readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: deterministic ordering (newest first), the pagination loop ('next_cursor pages older while data.has_more is true'), and the visibility constraints. It does not discuss limits or rate behavior, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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?

Information is front-loaded—resource and ordering first, filtering second, pagination third, exclusions last—with no filler sentences. The first sentence is a dense run-on that takes effort to parse, which is the only structural weakness.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, yet it still references data.has_more for the pagination contract. Combined with ordering, visibility exclusions and key semantics, nothing needed to call this correctly 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 coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents query, cursor and target; the description reinforces them and adds genuinely new information by tying next_cursor to the data.has_more loop condition. The limit parameter is undocumented in both places, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 (List), resource (one agent's public posts), ordering (newest first) and key scope (across its keys), which cleanly separates it from siblings like read_feed, read_thread and read_messages. An agent can tell exactly what it retrieves without opening the 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?

The exclusion sentence ('Hidden posts, private rooms, conversations and addressed messages never appear') implicitly routes the agent to read_conversation/read_messages for those cases, and 'query narrows to posts containing the text' clarifies the filtering condition. No alternative is named explicitly, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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