x_api_get_users_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It declares read-only risk, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior for tenant/account resolution, expected response shape, and common failure modes (auth failures, rate limits). It also warns that responses may contain sensitive data, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 clear section headings (Risk, Required permissions, Parameter formats, Expected response shape, etc.). Redundancies exist ('Get Posts' appears twice, read-only stated twice), but the structured format makes the information scannable and each section adds relevant detail for such a complex tool.

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?

The description covers auth prerequisites, environment selection, response shape, failure conditions, and an example invocation, which is substantial for a 14-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema. It is not perfect, as it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling post-retrieval tools or clarify the semantics of the id parameter, but it provides enough for an agent to proceed in most cases.

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 compensates by listing parameter formats and constraints, specifying path vs query context for id, since_id, etc., and types for some. However, it omits several parameters (authorizationKey, preferredAuthType) and does not explain the semantic meaning of 'id' or the filtering/response implications of parameters like exclude, start_time, and end_time.

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,' which states the verb and resource but lacks specificity about whose posts are retrieved or how this differs from other post-fetching tools like x_api_get_posts_by_id or x_api_get_users_timeline. It does not explain that this tool retrieves a user's posts by user ID, making the purpose vague at the operational level despite the name hinting at it.

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: Get Posts' is circular and unhelpful, merely restating the purpose. However, the 'Do not use when' section gives explicit guidance to prefer schema discovery or query suggestion for exploration, and it lists recommended prerequisite tools, providing some context but not comparing this tool to similar post-fetching alternatives.

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