Get per-network limits

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real interpretive context the schema cannot: that character and byte limits are not interchangeable, that Bluesky enforces both 300 chars and 3000 bytes, and that an emoji counts as one character but several bytes — precisely the caveats an agent needs to avoid a false 'this fits' conclusion.

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 tight sentences: the returned fields first, then the reason to call it, then the one non-obvious edge case. Every sentence carries distinct information and the resource is front-loaded, with no filler or restatement of the title.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so by enumerating the limit categories per network. It does not say how the response is keyed or structured (per-network objects, units for duration/size), which leaves a small but real gap for a zero-parameter lookup whose entire value is the returned shape.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to document or compensate for. It correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 names a specific resource — per-network posting limits — and enumerates exactly which limits are returned (characters, post bytes, title length, images, video duration, file size), so an agent knows what it gets. It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling get_social_capabilities, which could plausibly also be read as returning network constraints, so it falls 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?

'Check these before writing a post' gives clear, actionable context for when to reach for this tool, reinforced by the concrete X-vs-LinkedIn rejection scenario. It stops short of a 5 because it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., versus get_social_capabilities).

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