Analyze Post (Fast)

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

Even though annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it consumes 2 orchyn credits, costs one-third as much as the alternative, relies on transcript/caption/stats rather than video frames, and has specific quality strengths/weaknesses. These are not derivable from annotations or schema.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the key differentiation, adds the cost, and ends with explicit default/alternative guidance. Each sentence earns its place; the only minor flaw is a missing space after 'credits.'

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, annotations, and an explicit alternative, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it differs, what it costs, when to use it, and when not to use it. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to invoke it.

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?

There is only one parameter, url, and the schema already describes it fully as 'Full public post URL.' The description adds useful context about the source content (transcript, caption, stats), but does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly states that this performs the same analysis as analyze_post but from transcript, caption, and stats rather than video frames, and explicitly names the differentiate-from sibling. The verb and resource are specific, and an agent can immediately tell this tool apart from analyze_post.

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 explicit routing guidance: 'Use this by default; reach for analyze_post when the visuals are the point.' It also describes the tradeoff between visual-style weakness and strength on hook, script, CTA, and audience, which helps an agent choose correctly.

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