ghl_get_social_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool retrieves scheduled or published posts, omitting that the status parameter also supports 'failed' and 'all', and does not mention default behavior, pagination via skip/limit, or output format. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a read tool without annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It wastes no words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. It is not overly verbose but lacks some critical details that would fit naturally in a longer description.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide sufficient context for the agent to invoke the tool correctly. It fails to cover default parameter values, the full status range, pagination behavior, or return structure, making it incomplete for a tool with three parameters and zero schema description coverage.

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 0% description coverage and the description does not explain the parameters. It partially hints at the 'status' parameter by mentioning scheduled or published posts, but omits the 'failed' and 'all' enum values and provides no explanation of 'skip' or 'limit'. This does little to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 identifies the tool as fetching social media posts, using the verb 'Get' and resource 'social media posts'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_create_social_post and ghl_delete_social_post by indicating a read operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from ghl_get_social_accounts (accounts vs posts is implicit). The qualifier 'scheduled or published' is slightly limiting given the status enum includes 'failed' and 'all', but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_get_social_accounts or ghl_create_social_post. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and basic description.

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