get_community_posts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it partially discharges this by disclosing the return payload (scores, comment counts, metadata) and the absence of prior auth discussion. It omits pagination behavior, default sort, and rate-limit or access constraints, which matter for an unannotated read tool.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The sort enumeration partially duplicates the schema enum, a minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape, and it correctly identifies the resource scope for a moderately complex five-parameter tool. Remaining gaps (default sort, page-size behavior) are largely covered by the schema itself.

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 enum values, limit bounds, and pagination cursor semantics are already documented. The description only restates the available sort values and adds no meaning for 'time', 'after', or 'limit' beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get posts') scoped to 'any public subreddit', which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_user_posts or get_popular. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'any public subreddit' scoping, which tells the agent this is for public community feeds rather than user or search endpoints. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling listing tools.

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