Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a read-only search operation ('Search'), works on public content ('public Bluesky posts'), requires no authentication ('No Bluesky credentials required'), and has no cost implications ('FREE — no credit cost'). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior (cursor usage), or response format details.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states core purpose, second clarifies authentication scope, third addresses cost implications. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value beyond what's in the structured fields.

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 search tool with no annotations but comprehensive input schema (89% coverage), the description provides good context about public access, authentication requirements, and cost. However, without an output schema, it should ideally mention what gets returned (posts with metadata) to be fully complete for agent understanding.

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?

With high schema description coverage (89%), the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already well-documented in the schema (query syntax examples, limit defaults, sort behaviors, etc.), so it doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema documentation.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Search public Bluesky posts') and resource ('Bluesky posts'), distinguishing it from siblings like bluesky_post (create), bluesky_reply (reply), and bluesky_mentions (mentions-focused). The mention of 'public' and 'no credentials required' further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Search public Bluesky posts') and implicitly contrasts with credential-requiring tools, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like bluesky_mentions or bluesky_thread for different search needs.

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