list_public_posts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses that no credentials are sent, exactly one upstream read occurs, pagination provides next_offset but not reliable has_more, and public metadata does not guarantee body access. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, densely packed with relevant constraints and caveats, with the central purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an output schema present, return-value details need no description. The description covers access mode, pagination behavior, and data-access limitations. The only minor gap is that publication_url is not explicitly identified as the target archive selector, though the parameter name makes it recoverable.

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 0%, but the description compensates for most parameters: limit bounds and default, sort and query behavior, and offset via next_offset are all addressed. publication_url is left to the schema name, but its meaning is clear enough.

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 opening phrase 'Anonymous public archive read' states a specific verb, resource, and key differentiator (no credentials), clearly identifying the list operation. The count range and public scope further distinguish it from auth-required sibling tools.

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?

Clear context is provided: this is for reading public archives anonymously, so an agent can infer not to use it for subscriber-specific or draft operations. No explicit alternative or when-not condition is named, so it stops short of a 5.

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