reddit_user_submitted

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, eliminating concerns about mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond this, such as the specific fields returned ('title, author, score, comment count, and permalink') and the pagination mechanism ('plus an `after` cursor'). This gives the agent a clear model of what to expect from the response.

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 a compact two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the core purpose and provides essential details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes value, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the return fields and pagination cursor, giving the agent a complete picture. For a read-only list operation with well-documented parameters, this description is fully sufficient without needing additional context.

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 the parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds contextual value through the example ('name='spez' sort='top'') which clarifies usage patterns. It also reinforces the meaning of the `after` cursor for pagination, aligning with the schema's description.

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 opens with 'List a Reddit user's submitted POSTS,' a specific verb and resource that clearly defines the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by explicitly calling out 'the sibling of reddit_user_comments,' making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for use: 'Use to see what a redditor posts, not just what they comment on.' This differentiates it from the sibling tool reddit_user_comments. It also includes a concrete example ('name='spez' sort='top'') to illustrate invocation, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or other alternatives.

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