run_indiehackers_posts_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (author, upvotes, comment counts) and the pricing model (1 point per returned record), which is genuine cost context. It says nothing about pagination, auth, or how 'top' is ranked beyond upvotes.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the resource and the available feed variants. It wastes nothing, though the closing pricing clause is slightly tacked on.

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?

Given four fully documented parameters and no output schema, the minimum an agent needs is present. However, with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, more could be said about the shape of returned records and whether results are paged.

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 sort, period, date, and max_items are already fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of periods and sorts merely echoes those enum values without adding format or interaction detail (e.g. how date interacts with period).

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 resource (Indie Hackers post feeds) and the variants available (top of week/month/all-time, or newest), plus what each record contains. An agent can tell it apart from run_indiehackers_posts_comments or run_indiehackers_ideas_search, though it never names those siblings.

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 or exclusions are given. The agent must infer from the name and the mention of 'feeds' that this is for browsing post lists rather than fetching a single post or its comments, and no alternative tool is referenced.

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