Read likes, reposts, replies and quotes on your Bluesky posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds significant value by disclosing that missing posts are reported as MISSING (not zero), that no impression counts exist and therefore no engagement rate can be computed, and that it costs 0 credits. These are behavioral details an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 concise and every sentence adds unique information: what it reads, how to address posts, the impression caveat, the MISSING behavior, and the read-only/credits note. It is logically ordered and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only metrics tool with one parameter and no output schema specified, the description covers all essential usage aspects: what metrics are returned, how to identify posts, edge-case handling for missing URIs, and prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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% and the parameter 'uris' is described in the schema as AT-URIs at most 25. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that these are the `at://…` values returned by post_to_bluesky, not web URLs, and confirms the 25 limit. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('live engagement for up to 25 of the connected account’s Bluesky posts') and lists exact metrics (likes, reposts, replies, quotes, bookmarks). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_bluesky_posts (which lists posts) and post_to_bluesky (which creates posts).

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?

It clearly explains how to invoke the tool (address posts by AT-URI, not web URL) and sets expectations about what is returned (counts without impressions). It also notes the prerequisite 'Needs Bluesky connected.' It does not explicitly compare to alternative metrics tools, but the domain is clear enough that an agent can infer when this is appropriate.

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