pfm_get_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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose pagination and the OR-logic behavior for multiple filter values, which is a useful non-obvious trait. However, it omits other behavioral details such as sorting, default return when no filters are applied, or pagination metadata. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a paginated list of social posts') followed by succinct filter details. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or restatement. It is highly efficient and effectively structured.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a solid overview: it names the resource, mentions pagination, and lists all filter categories with OR logic. It does not describe the response shape, but for a list operation this is partially implied. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of return format or sorting, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description merely summarizes the filter parameters and repeats the OR logic that is already documented in each parameter's schema description. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so no bonus is warranted.

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 'Get a paginated list of social posts' with specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pfm_get_post (singular) by specifying 'paginated list' and listing filter dimensions. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'Get a paginated list' and the filter options, indicating this tool is for listing/searching posts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like pfm_get_post (for a single post), nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance. The advice is implicit rather than explicit.

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