Rank your posts by what actually worked

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important cost trait—one API request per post—along with the insight that absolute likes mostly rank by age, which shapes expected results. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the rationale follows, and the cost warning earns its place. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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?

The description covers the tool's workflow, ranking rationale, and request-cost behavior, which is sufficient given that all parameters are optional and fully schema-documented. It does not specify the exact return shape, but 'rank them' plus the sorting explanation makes the output intent clear enough.

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%: sample, account, and sort_by are each documented in the schema itself. The description reinforces the cost tradeoff for sample size but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a concrete composite action—fetch recent posts, pull metrics, rank them—and clarifies the ranking methodology (engagement rate vs. raw likes). This clearly differentiates it from raw listing tools like get_posts or get_post_insights.

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 clear context on when this tool is valuable: when the user wants to know which posts 'landed' relative to views, not just which accumulated the most likes. It also warns about cost-per-post and advises a modest sample. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is clear.

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