Read an account's posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: 'newest first' ordering, automatic pagination (implied by 'Pages automatically' in the schema but reinforced by the description's simplicity), and credential-free access. It does not overpromise side effects and aligns with the read-only annotation.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core behavior ('Posts by one account, newest first') before giving auth context and filter usage. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or restating of the tool name.

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 list-retrieval tool with read-only annotations, the description is adequate: it states scope, ordering, credential requirements, and filter semantics. It does not describe the return format, but with no output schema and a straightforward list result, this is a minor gap. The presence of 7 parameters is mitigated by high schema coverage, so the description need not repeat everything.

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 schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful guidance for the 'filter' parameter, explaining the practical difference between 'posts_no_replies' and others. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters like 'since_hours' or 'include_pins', which are already well-described in the schema. This is a solid baseline with a slight boost for the filter clarification.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('an account's posts'), states the ordering ('newest first'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by clarifying it shows one account's posts. The filter guidance further sharpens the purpose by separating original posts from replies/reposts.

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 states it works for anyone with or without credentials, which helps with auth context. It also gives a concrete use case for the filter ('posts_no_replies is what you want when studying how someone writes'), implying when to choose this option. It does not explicitly state when to prefer other sibling tools like get_timeline or get_feed, but the scope is clear enough.

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