Rank your posts by a metric

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds that it works on published posts and includes the ranking metrics, but it does not disclose return format or pagination behavior; this is adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists the available ranking metrics without repetition or 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 simple read-only ranking tool with no required parameters and a fairly descriptive schema, the definition is nearly complete. It omits explicit return-shape details, but the output of a 'rank posts' operation is strongly implied; the metric vocabulary mismatch is the main remaining 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?

The schema documents most parameters, but offset is left without a description. The description adds human-readable metric labels that map to order_by values, though 'paid conversions' does not exactly match the schema's 'paid_signups', which introduces minor ambiguity. It does not compensate fully for the undocumented offset semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Rank published posts by a performance metric.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like list_posts or get_post_stats by focusing on ranking across a defined set of metrics, so an agent can identify it 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?

It gives a clear use context: 'to find what actually worked.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the ranking intent is distinct enough that an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate versus listing or stats tools.

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