Read an account's posts

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it works with or without credentials, and results are returned newest first. It stops short of describing pagination or result volume beyond what the schema says.

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, front-loaded with the core scope and ordering before secondary auth and filter advice. No filler or restated title text.

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 7-parameter read tool with annotations but no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, auth mode, and the most semantically loaded parameter. Remaining gaps (e.g., pagination, time-window behavior) are largely covered by the schema descriptions.

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 86%, so the structured fields already carry the parameter burden. The description only adds intent-level color for the filter param ('is what you want when studying how someone writes') and does not touch actor, limit, cursor, since_hours, or include_pins.

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 ('Posts by one account') plus ordering ('newest first'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like search_posts, get_feed, and get_timeline. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the schema.

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?

Provides auth context ('Works for anyone, with or without credentials') and steers the filter choice toward 'posts_no_replies' for authorship analysis. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over get_timeline or search_posts, so the competitive routing is left to inference.

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