x_api_get_posts_counts_recent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses read-only risk, bearer token requirement, environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is thorough and goes beyond simple 'safe read' statements.

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 (Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, etc.), making it scannable. However, the 'Use when' section is redundant with the first sentence, and the parameter list repeats schema information. Still, it's not overly verbose and front-loads the core 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?

With 14 parameters and no output schema, the description covers many practical aspects: purpose, auth, failure conditions, response shape, and an example. However, it does not explain the semantic meaning of the search parameters, the definition of 'recent', pagination behavior, or the contents of the response data beyond the envelope. This leaves gaps for an agent needing to construct valid calls.

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?

The description lists parameter names and types, but mostly duplicates the schema (which already has types). It adds 'query' location and 'required' for query, but doesn't explain the meaning of parameters like query, start_time, end_time, granularity, or pagination tokens. The example omits the required 'query' parameter, using only auth scoping parameters, which could mislead an agent about required arguments.

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 count of recent Posts', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly states the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool x_api_get_posts_counts_all beyond the 'recent' in the name and description; the description could mention the distinction between counting recent vs all posts.

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' section simply restates the purpose ('Get count of recent Posts'), providing no new guidance. The 'Do not use when' advice is generic (prefer schema discovery when exploring) and doesn't differentiate from similar counting/search tools. It lacks an explicit comparison to x_api_get_posts_counts_all or other siblings.

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