Get Hashtag Posts

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

The description discloses that the tool extracts post links from a grid page, returns structured references, and supports a max_posts limit, which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It does not discuss pagination behavior or failure modes, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: a one-sentence summary, a mechanism explanation, a cross-reference, and a concise Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds information, and the layout is easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the return structure (url, sections, references, total_posts), the key parameters, and the expected output. The annotations and output schema handle safety and type details, so the description is complete within its role.

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?

Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: hashtag should be provided without the '#' symbol, and max_posts sets the load limit with a default of 50. It also mentions the ctx parameter for progress reporting, which is absent from the schema but useful for understanding execution.

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 the verb ('Get'), resource ('posts for a hashtag'), and mechanism ('extracts post links from the hashtag grid page'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_posts and get_location_posts, and cross-references get_post_details for enrichment, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context: this tool lists post links from a hashtag grid. It explicitly names get_post_details as the follow-up for individual post enrichment, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for user-specific posts). Sibling names make this obvious, but the lack of explicit exclusions prevents a 5.

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