get_top_posts

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, yet the description still adds real behavior: results come from stored data and may be stale, ordering is newest-first, and the exact metric set is enumerated. It does not mention pagination or result caps, but the staleness and ordering disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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 action and the returned fields, then ordering, then the staleness caveat — a sensible information order with no filler. Slight redundancy between "top posts" and "your own recent posts," which reads like a hedge rather than two distinct facts.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by listing returned metrics and stating sort order and data freshness. The remaining gap is that a tool named "top posts" never explains whether anything is ranked by performance, nor how it differs from list_recent_posts.

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?

There is a single optional limit parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already conveys range and default. The description says nothing about limit, which is acceptable given full coverage, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema and does not explain whether limit applies before or after any ranking.

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 concrete verb and resource ("List your top posts") and immediately enumerates the metrics returned, so an agent knows what it gets. The phrase "Your own recent posts" clarifies scope, but it leaves ambiguity against the sibling list_recent_posts, which is not named or 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?

Usage is only implied: "Stored, so refresh first for current numbers" is a useful prerequisite hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives despite list_posts, list_recent_posts and get_post all being plausible substitutes.

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