À reproduire (posts gardés)

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two real traits — the sort order and a rate limit of 5 reads per minute that is described as 'hors quota' — which is genuinely useful. However, the quota phrasing is ambiguous (is it exempt from quota, or itself capped at 5/min?) and nothing is said about how many posts come back, pagination, or behavior for a user with no kept posts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope, then the added value, then the rate caveat. It is compact with no filler; the only weak spot is the slightly cryptic parenthetical about quota.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the essentials (what is returned, ordering, the embedded note, rate limiting) but leaves the sole input parameter unexplained and gives no sense of result volume. Adequate but with a visible hole for a read tool the agent is meant to call repeatedly.

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 one parameter, 'detail' (boolean), with 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it at all. An agent cannot tell what toggling it does or which value to send, and the description does nothing to compensate for the bare schema.

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 states a specific resource and scope: all posts the user has kept, ordered newest to oldest, each with its 'ce qu'il en reprend' note. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from a generic search, but it never names a sibling (chercher_posts, trier_post, post) so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives a purpose-driven cue ('le point de départ pour créer ses contenus'), which implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative. Usage is suggested rather than prescribed.

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