Rank comparable post performance

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining that ranking is based on 'normalized, deterministic rates' and 'latest stored snapshot,' indicating results are reproducible and based on snapshot data rather than live state. This aligns with the annotations and provides useful insight into the operation'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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Rank posts') and immediately provides the method. It avoids unnecessary verbiage and is highly scannable.

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?

The description covers the core concept of ranking by normalized snapshot rates, but lacks details on sort order (e.g., descending), how limit and status are applied, and what the output looks like. With no output schema, return value expectations are unaddressed, leaving gaps for effective use.

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 schema provides zero descriptions for parameters (coverage 0%), and the description does not elaborate on metric, limit, or status semantics. While parameter names and enums provide some self-evident meaning, the description fails to explain how limit affects result size or how status filters the posts, leaving the agent to infer these details.

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 action 'Rank posts' with a specific resource and adds scope via 'using normalized, deterministic rates from each post's latest stored snapshot.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts (which lists without ranking) and get_post_performance (which likely targets a single post rather than comparing multiple).

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 tool is used for comparing/ranking posts but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_post_performance or list_posts. There is no direct mention of when not to use it or clear context distinguishing it from similar tools.

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