Get User Posts

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds complementary behavioral details: it discloses credit consumption ('Consumes 2 orchyn credits'), explains the returned fields (title/caption, thumbnailUrl, externalUrl, stats, up to 4 inline thumbnails), and notes that thumbnails render in chat. No contradiction with annotations.

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 somewhat long but every sentence contributes: purpose, output contents, when to use, credit cost, and the alternative tool. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and ends with the sibling routing; no filler or repetition beyond the slight overlap between 'Use this when...' and 'Use to scan...'.

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 listing tool with an output schema and thorough annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: platform list, handle example, return contents, credit cost, and the precise differentiation from find_hook_pattern. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic nuance beyond the schema, especially the LinkedIn public_id rule and the '@' prefix tolerance for creator handles, which reduces the chance of incorrect parameter values.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List recent posts by a creator handle', and enumerates the supported platforms with concrete examples like '@zoundsapp' and LinkedIn's 'williamhgates'. It also differentiates itself from find_hook_pattern by clarifying that this tool returns the raw list rather than an extracted formula.

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 states exact use cases: 'Use this when Claude needs to pull more posts from the same account to spot a pattern, or to scan a whole profile.' It also explicitly directs to find_hook_pattern when the goal is extracting the creator's formula, providing a clear when-not-to-use alternative.

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