pfm_get_post_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination, OR logic for filters, and the contents of the result (success/failure, errors, platform URL, per-platform data). This adds meaningful context beyond a simple 'get' operation, though it does not cover rate limits or authorization.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds information. It is effectively three short sentences with no fluff or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains pagination, filtering, and response contents. However, it does not clarify how filters from different groups combine (e.g., AND vs OR across types), which is a minor gap in completeness.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description adds a brief summary that all filters use OR logic, but this mostly repeats schema details. It does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool gets a paginated list of social post results, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the singular sibling pfm_get_post_result by explicitly saying 'list' and describing pagination.

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 implies usage for retrieving multiple post results with filtering, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it. No comparison to pfm_get_post_result or pfm_get_posts is provided, so the guidance is only implied.

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