get_updates

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds two genuinely useful behaviors: that the response indicates whether more updates exist (a pagination signal with no output schema to reveal it) and that an active posterly subscription is a prerequisite. Return shape beyond that continuation flag is left implicit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose then pagination strategy, with zero filler. The subscription prerequisite is placed last where it reads as a constraint rather than a preamble.

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 four-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, pagination mechanics and a prerequisite. The one real gap is that entry-level fields (e.g. what an update looks like, title/date/category) are not characterized, though 'include_content' in the schema implies a body field.

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 baseline is 3, but the description earns a modest bump by explaining how 'offset' and 'since' are functionally used (page vs. narrow) rather than just naming them, which the schema text only partially duplicates. It says nothing extra about 'limit' or 'include_content', which the schema already documents fully.

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 and resource ('Get the latest posterly product updates and news from the updates feed'), enumerates what is returned (new features, improvements, fixes), and specifies ordering ('newest first'). No sibling tool covers product updates, so no disambiguation is needed and an agent can identify the tool immediately.

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 conditional guidance for the two discovery strategies: page with 'offset' for the next page, or narrow with 'since' for a date cut. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives, but for a feed-reading tool the usage context is clear.

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