x_api_get_posts_by_ids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It declares read-only risk, required bearer/OAuth tokens and scopes, environment-selection behavior for tenant resolution, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and a safety warning about sensitive account data. This is far more than minimal.

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 with labeled sections and front-loaded purpose. However, the 'Use when' line is a redundant restatement of the title, and the example is incomplete (missing required ids), which undermines the structure's utility. It is longer than necessary.

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 no output schema and complex auth requirements, the description covers response envelope, failure conditions, permissions, environment selection, and safety warnings. The main gap is that it does not describe the content of the inner 'data' field (the actual post objects) or how multiple IDs should be formatted in practice.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for ids (query, required) and explains how scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId/credentialKey affect auth resolution. However, it inaccurately limits ids to 'array' when the schema allows string or array, omits authorizationKey and preferredAuthType semantics, and the example omits the required ids parameter.

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 opens with 'Get Posts by IDs,' which clearly identifies the action and resource, and the plural 'IDs' hints at batch retrieval, distinguishing it from the singular sibling x_api_get_posts_by_id. However, it mostly restates the tool name and does not explicitly describe the batch semantics or relationship to related search/get tools.

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 'Use when' field is tautological ('Get Posts by IDs'), but the 'Do not use when' section offers real guidance: avoid when exploring, and prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion. It also lists prerequisite/follow-up tools. Missing is explicit comparison to x_api_get_posts_by_id or search endpoints, so usage guidance is incomplete.

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