Repost (retweet) a post

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: reposts 'never travel out-of-network in For You and are ×0.75 in-network,' plus the throttling limit and cost. This adds significant context about the tool's actual effects, which the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) do not cover. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 concise but packed with essential information. It front-loads the main purpose, then efficiently covers usage restrictions, network effects, throttling, and cost in a single flowing sentence. Every clause contributes value without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's modest complexity (no output schema, few parameters), the description is remarkably complete. It explains not just what it does but when it's allowed, its limitations (network spread, throttling), and the cost. The only minor gap is the lack of explanation about post_id, but that is a simple field and the overall context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description does not provide additional meaning for the parameters. The schema already describes 'why' as 'One line on why (kept in the ledger note)' and 'post_id' only has a pattern, with no description. Since schema coverage is exactly 50% (why described, post_id not), and the description adds no param-level details, it is only adequate but not enhancing. The parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing post_id 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Repost another post to your followers.' This is a specific verb (repost) and resource (a post), fully distinguishing it from siblings like publish, reply, or dm. It also adds context about the action's network distribution and throttling, further clarifying what it does.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Allowed on pay-per-use for informational sharing (no bulk)' and 'use sparingly, mainly to amplify people who engaged with you.' It also notes constraints like 'Throttled to 10/day' and cost, giving the agent clear guidance on appropriate usage versus alternatives.

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