Truth Social

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-resource credit cost, failures are free, cached reads at zero cost via max_age_days, and cursor-based paging. Missing only the response shape detail beyond 'says what was charged and what is left'.

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?

Well front-loaded: one-line purpose, invocation mechanics, then a scannable per-resource bullet list with costs. Almost no filler, though the unbacked 'videos' mention in the opening sentence is a wasted/misleading token.

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 seven-parameter polymorphic dispatcher, the description covers resource selection, cost model, caching, paging, and where to get deeper per-resource details (`describe`). With no output schema present, it might have said a bit more about what a post/profile payload contains, but the essentials for correct invocation are there.

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, but the description synthesizes the resource-to-parameter mapping compactly (including the handle|id alternative for profile.posts) and restates the credit/pagination meaning of `cursor` and `max_age_days`. This lightly exceeds what the schema fields convey individually.

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 names the platform and enumerates exactly three fetchable resources with their signatures (post(url), profile(handle), profile.posts(handle|id)), so the agent knows precisely what data is available. It is clearly distinct from siblings like twitter or tiktok, though it never says so explicitly. The opening also mentions 'videos' that no resource provides, a small blur.

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?

It states how to invoke (pick a resource, pass its parameters as top-level args, extras in `params`), gives the pagination contract, and points to `describe` for option types. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over `call_endpoint` or platform-specific siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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