threads_get_profile_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most consequential behaviors: the required permission scope and the restricted set of usernames queryable under standard access. It omits failure modes, rate limits, and result ordering, keeping it below 5.

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?

A single compact sentence pair with the core action front-loaded and the access caveat immediately after. No restatement of the name and no 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?

For a 5-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the action and the access gate that would otherwise cause silent failures. Pagination and result-shape details are left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 username, after, limit, since, and until are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about pagination semantics, date-window behavior, or default limits, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a public profile's posts') keyed by username, and the 'Profile Discovery' marker separates it from own-account tools like threads_get_user_threads and threads_get_posts. It does not explicitly name the sibling that handles the alternative case, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names a hard precondition (threads_profile_discovery permission) and a fallback behavior (standard access limited to four accounts), which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over threads_profile, threads_get_user_threads, or ig_business_discovery, so the routing decision is only implied.

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