See who quoted a post

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful conceptual context about quote posts versus reposts, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, result shape, or ordering. The description is consistent with the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core result is stated first, and the second sentence adds a valuable distinction that helps the agent decide when to use the tool. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the conceptual value and what is included (quotes) versus excluded (reposts). It does not describe the output structure, but the operation is simple enough that the absence of an output schema is not a major gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the general notion of 'a specific post,' which maps to the required uri parameter. Thus it meets the baseline without significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: returning posts that quote a specific post. It also distinguishes quotes from reposts, which directly separates it from the sibling get_reposted_by. The title reinforces the resource and action, making the tool unambiguous.

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 gives strong contextual guidance by saying 'This is where the argument about a post usually lives' and noting that quotes carry commentary whereas reposts do not. It implies when to use this tool over a repost-listing alternative, though it does not explicitly name the alternative or state exact when-not-to-use conditions.

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