get_post_volume

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

The description discloses that the series includes days with zero posts and returns {date: count} in UTC, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result format. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the input semantics, output format, timezone, and density of data. It lacks mention of ordering or pagination, but these are likely irrelevant for a per-day aggregation.

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?

The description mentions the `days` parameter and explains that it refers to the last number of days in the past. This adds meaning beyond the input schema, which only specifies type, default, and range. The 0% schema description coverage is compensated by the inline parameter reference.

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 clearly states it provides a per-day count of post audits for a specified number of past days, specifying the UTC timezone. It distinguishes the tool's output format from sibling tools like get_daily_stats or get_post_success_rate, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_daily_stats or get_post_success_rate. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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