Bluesky

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds the cost model on top: per-call credit charges, failures being free, cached copies being free via max_age_days, and cursor-based paging with the result reporting credits charged and remaining. That is substantial operational context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the calling convention, followed by a scannable per-resource list with credit costs — every line is actionable. The only waste is the unsupported 'videos' claim in the opening sentence.

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?

A six-parameter dispatch tool with a free-form nested params object and no output schema needs to spell out optional per-resource arguments, and this one defers them to a description that does not contain them. Credit and paging behavior are covered well, but an agent must call describe before it can use optional parameters.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the resource-to-argument mapping ('post(url)', 'profile(handle)') largely restates the schema's 'Used by:' notes. More importantly, the description claims each resource's optional parameters 'are in the tool description' but never lists them, leaving a dangling reference for the open-ended params bag.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Data from Bluesky: profiles, posts and videos') and enumerates the exact resources with their required arguments, so an agent knows what it will get. It loses a point because the intro promises 'videos' while no video resource exists in the enum, and because overlapping siblings (get_profile, get_post) are never distinguished.

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?

Gives explicit calling convention ('Pick a resource, then pass its parameters as top-level arguments'), per-resource selection detail, pagination instructions, and the caching escape hatch. It never says when to choose this tool over the sibling get_profile/get_post/twitter tools, which is the main usage gap.

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