Read a wall

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by noting that posts are returned newest first, and that each post carries likes, reposts, comments, and views. It also explains the sign convention for owner_id, which is not in annotations.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and then provides essential details in the second sentence.

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?

Given that all parameters are optional, schema coverage is full, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description completes the picture by explaining ordering, target selection, and output contents. No gaps remain.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond schema by explaining the dual usage of domain and owner_id, and emphasizing the engagement metrics each post includes. This clarifies parameter interplay.

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 clearly states it reads posts from a wall, specifies the resource (user or community), and contrasts with sibling tools like vk_wall_post or vk_wall_delete. It explicitly says 'Read posts from a user or community wall, newest first.'

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?

The description explains when to use the tool: to read posts. It provides guidance on how to specify the target using domain or owner_id, with a clear rule for positive/negative values. It does not explicitly exclude non-use cases, but the context from sibling names implies it is for reading, not writing.

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