Get Location Posts

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral detail about extracting links from the location grid page, returning structured references, and the shape of the return dict. It does not contradict annotations, and the added context is valuable without being redundant.

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 with a headline summary, a usage guidance sentence, and clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every part contributes value, with no fluff.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. The Returns section effectively serves as an output schema. Minor omissions like empty-location behavior exist, but overall it is adequate for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains location_id and max_posts well. However, it lists 'ctx' as an argument that is not present in the input schema, which could confuse the agent into passing an invalid parameter.

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 'Get posts tagged at a location' and describes extracting post links from the location grid page, providing a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from get_post_details by directing users to that tool for individual post enrichment.

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 explicitly recommends using get_post_details for individual post enrichment, offering an alternative for a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like get_hashtag_posts, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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