get_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds valuable behavioral details: defaults for sort and limit, cap at 50, pagination via cursor, and the return fields (caption, media URL, counts, timestamps plus has_more/next_cursor). No contradictions.

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 well-structured: starts with a one-sentence summary, then details usage, parameter behavior, return data, and ends with two concrete examples. Each sentence adds value, and it is not overly long. Information is 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, sorting, pagination, output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: how to identify the creator, sorting options, pagination mechanics, return fields, and even example usage scenarios. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still mentions key fields.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the mutual exclusivity of creator_id vs platform+username, states defaults and max for limit, describes the sort options with brief explanations, and clarifies the cursor’s source. This enhances the agent's understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch a creator's posts, sorted and paginated' and provides concrete examples of user queries that trigger this tool. It distinguishes from sibling tools by clarifying the scope (a specific creator, with sorting/pagination) and mentions an alternative path (using after get_profile), making the purpose clear and distinct.

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 includes explicit when-to-use scenarios like 'when the user asks to see what a creator has posted' and gives example queries. It explains the two identification methods (creator_id or platform+username) and mentions a workflow after get_profile. While it does not explicitly list when not to use, the examples and context provide strong guidance.

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