Get Profile Post URLs

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the actual mechanism: navigating to /activity/all/, scrolling for SDUI/RSC payloads, returning unique permalinks with most-recent-first ordering, and providing the exact URL shape. This gives the agent accurate expectations of what the tool does and how it behaves.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then gives compact, relevant mechanics: the page path, loading behavior, count semantics, ordering, and URL format. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description covers all essential context: what page is visited, how results are gathered, the max count, ordering, URL form, and downstream usage. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents both username and count. The description reinforces count's meaning with 'up to *count* unique post permalinks' and adds ordering context, but it does not add substantive parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Resolve canonical post permalinks from a profile's recent activity.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_person_profile and search_posts by emphasizing canonical permalinks and direct use by comment_on_post.

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 a clear use case: when you need canonical, recent post URLs from a specific profile for commenting. It names the downstream consumer (comment_on_post) and limits scope to a profile's activity page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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