Read an account's posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior ('newest first') and a tip about reply filtering, which is useful but not extensive. It does not mention pagination mechanics, default limits, or authentication requirements, though these are partly in the schema. No contradiction with 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 the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds a practical tip without excess. It is appropriately concise and well-structured, though it could arguably be expanded slightly with pagination behavior or a mention of the 'account' parameter's default.

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 10 parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (account statuses) and ordering. It does not explain the return format, but no output schema exists. The automatic pagination and parameter defaults are in the schema, so the description is adequate given the annotations and schema richness.

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 already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it highlights 'exclude_replies' with a use case and notes 'newest first' (not a parameter but ordering). This is a marginal enhancement over the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 the core function clearly: 'Statuses by one account, newest first.' This specifies the verb (get statuses), the resource (one account), and the ordering. It distinguishes from get_account (account details) and timeline tools by focusing on a single account's posts, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 a specific usage tip: 'Use exclude_replies when studying how someone writes, so replies do not dominate the sample.' This provides context for when to use a parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_home_timeline or get_account. It implies the use case of examining an account's own posts but lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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