Get per-network limits

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: limits are hard constraints, Bluesky enforces both 300 characters and 3000 bytes, and emojis count as one character but multiple bytes. This gives the agent a deeper understanding of what the returned data means.

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 with the core purpose, then uses two short examples to illustrate practical relevance. Every sentence adds value, and the length is well matched to the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns and why an agent would call it. Nothing necessary for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are not applicable. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 retrieves hard per-network limits and enumerates exactly what kinds of limits are included (characters, bytes, title length, images, video duration, file size). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_social_capabilities and get_publication_stats, which sound conceptually different.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Check these before writing a post.' It also gives a concrete motivating example about LinkedIn vs. X acceptance. It does not formally discuss alternatives or exclusions, but with no obvious sibling overlap, that is not a significant gap.

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