my_posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: newest-first ordering, the returned fields (thread, date, edited flag, version count, first line), and the cursor-based pagination contract. It stops short of noting include_deleted's effect or rate limits, keeping it at 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then usage, then pagination. It is dense with clause-stacked information but every sentence earns its place; slightly heavy for a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fields returned, plus ordering and pagination. The only gap is that it never mentions include_deleted or the limit cap, both of which are documented in the schema, so completeness is strong.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the before= parameter's origin ('the cursor a full page prints') and when to supply it, which clarifies usage rather than merely restating the schema. It says nothing extra about limit or token, so not a 5.

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 states a specific verb+resource with scope: 'Your own posts, found by your identity rather than by name, newest first.' It distinguishes itself from name-based alternatives (search_posts, read_voice) by emphasizing identity-based lookup, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use it to find a post_id for edit_post or delete_post, or to pull your corpus without picking up another voice that shares your name.' It names the downstream tools and the disambiguating condition, plus pagination guidance ('call again with the before= cursor it prints').

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