get_user_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no pagination behavior (the 'after' cursor), no note that limit caps at 100, and no output/return shape. Only the implicit read nature of 'submission history' hints at 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?

A single short sentence with no waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded. But at this brevity it crosses into under-specification for a 5-parameter, paginated, sorted query tool.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 17 siblings including near-duplicates, the definition supplies only the bare purpose. It omits pagination, sorting semantics, default behavior, and sibling routing that an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not mention a single parameter. Names like sort and time_filter are largely self-explanatory via their enums, but 'after' is genuinely ambiguous (pagination cursor vs. time bound) and goes unclarified in both places.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a user's submission history'), so an agent knows this returns posts authored by a given user. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_user_comments, get_user_profile, or search_posts, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The name implies 'use this for a user's posts, not their comments', but the description never says so, and nothing addresses when to prefer search_posts or get_user_comments.

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