Listar posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behavioral facts beyond the schema: results are silently limited to posts citing Flávio by default, and default ordering is newest-first. That is genuinely useful for a read tool that would otherwise appear to return everything. However, pagination, result-set size limits, and the returned record shape are not mentioned.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the default-scope caveat is placed prominently. Slightly more could be front-loaded, but it is efficient and readable.

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 14-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the most critical surprise (default filtering to Flávio citations) but leaves out what a post record contains and how to page through results. The schema carries most of the parameter burden, so this is adequate without being complete.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including enums and defaults; baseline is 3. The description's mention of filter categories (político, rede, nível de citação, período, texto) only restates what the schema shows in more detail, adding no new semantics.

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 and resource ('Lista posts captados pelo Flaviômetro') plus the filter axes it supports, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like ranking or estatisticas_agrupadas that also deal with posts/politicians. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the use case (browsing individual posts with filters) and clarifies the default scope, but never says when to prefer this over ranking, estatisticas_agrupadas, or detalhes_politico. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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