x_api_get_posts_reposted_by

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it declares the tool read-only, lists required bearer/OAuth tokens and scopes, explains environment-selection behavior, provides expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This goes well beyond a minimal disclosure.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Permissions, Parameter formats, Expected response, Common failures, Recommended tools, Safety, Example). The main redundancy is the opening 'Get Reposted by' and its repetition in 'Use when', but the overall organization makes the density acceptable.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a surprising amount of context: expected response envelope, failure modes, auth requirements, environment-selection behavior, and a concrete example. It is not fully complete because the core purpose and several parameter meanings are vague, but it covers most operational concerns.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does explain id, max_results, and pagination_token formats, and the prose covers scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it never explains the meaning of id (e.g., 'the post ID'), what max_results controls, how pagination_token works, or what authorizationKey and preferredAuthType do, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 Reposted by', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name and lacks a clear object—it does not explicitly say 'retrieve users who reposted a specified post.' The 'Use when' section repeats the same phrase, adding no specificity and failing to distinguish this from sibling tools like x_api_get_posts_reposts or x_api_get_users_reposts_of_me.

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?

There is an explicit 'Do not use when' clause that steers away from exploration and auth/configuration scenarios, and it recommends x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for those cases. However, the 'Use when' is tautological ('Get Reposted by') and provides no concrete conditions for when to invoke this tool over specific sibling tools.

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