x_post_counts_recent

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: output is limited to counts and ISO timestamps only, making the tool safe to surface. It does not discuss pagination or token limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core function and key constraints with no wasted words. The safety clause earns its place by positioning the tool for safe surfacing.

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 full schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers what the tool returns, its supported granularities, and its limiting time window. Nothing essential to a correct call 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 description does not need to re-document parameters. The 'last 7 days' phrase adds a default-window hint not in the schema, but the description generally relies on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb (Return), resource (volume histogram for X v2 query), and temporal scope (last 7 days), with explicit granularity options. It differentiates from content-returning siblings by stating the result contains only counts and timestamps, never post text.

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 clearly implies this is the tool for recent count-only volume analysis, not for retrieving post content, by emphasizing histogram buckets and the absence of post text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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