Get User Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' is partly redundant, but 'anonymous' adds genuinely new context (no auth needed) and the description discloses the return envelope and pagination shape — valuable since there is no output schema. Minor gap: no note on rate limits or ordering defaults.

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?

Three terse sentences with zero padding; the core purpose leads and the behavioral and return-shape facts follow. Every clause earns its place.

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 by stating the return shape ({data, after}), and annotations cover the safety profile while 'anonymous' covers auth. Only marginal omissions remain (ordering semantics, defaults), so it is nearly complete for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (username, sort, limit, after, time_filter) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of an 'after' cursor lightly reinforces pagination but adds no syntax or default details beyond structured data — baseline 3.

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: 'Posts submitted by a user,' which an agent can distinguish from the comments-oriented sibling get_user_comments. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or clarify boundaries against get_user_info/get_post_comments, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that get_user_comments is the counterpart for comments and that this tool requires a username; nothing in the text routes between siblings.

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