get_posts

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world hints, but the description adds a crucial warning about placeholder vote data for posts newer than ~36h. This discloses behavioral quirks (backfill delay) and tells the agent never to report placeholder scores/comments as real, going well beyond the 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?

Three short paragraphs front-load the primary purpose, then provide usage context and a caveat. No wasted sentences; every part contributes essential information. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 bulk lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers returned fields (titles, authors, scores), notes the placeholder caveat, and the schema documents all parameters. This is sufficient for the agent to invoke it successfully without missing key context.

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% with all parameters well-documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific nuance beyond the schema (e.g., it mentions 'bulk' but the schema already says 'up to 500'). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Look up posts in bulk by id.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling search tools (which find posts by query) and from get_thread/get_comments by emphasizing bulk retrieval by known IDs. The mention of returning titles, authors, and scores further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 gives an explicit 'Use when' condition: when you already have post IDs, e.g., from search_comments results. This implies when not to use (when you lack IDs) and implies alternatives like search tools. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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