company_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses a read-only listing behavior and adds an important constraint: `topic` must be a bare keyword from company_topics, not an arbitrary string. It does not detail pagination or ordering, but these are minor for this straightforward query and the output schema defines the result format.

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 focused sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second clarifies the only non-obvious parameter. No filler or repetition.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the key behavior and the topic constraint, and an output schema exists to define the response shape. It falls slightly short of full completeness because the pagination parameters are undocumented, but the defaults and names make them reasonably inferable.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only documents `topic` (with examples), while leaving `page`, `limit`, and `company` unaddressed. `company` is required and inferable, and `page`/`limit` have defaults, but their semantics (e.g., page size, offset) are not defined anywhere in the schema or description.

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 opens with the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'posts about a company', making the core action unambiguous. It also states the optional narrowing by topic, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_topics (which presumably lists topics) and read_post (which reads a single post).

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 establishes the context: use this tool to list posts about a company, with an optional topic filter. It also directs the agent to source `topic` values from company_topics, giving a concrete prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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