Engagement on one post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that – no note on whether it aggregates counts versus returning actor lists, and no rate-limit or auth context. With the annotation bar lower, this is minimum-viable.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the returned data front-loaded and the sibling relationship last. Nothing repeats the title or wastes space.

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 enumerates the metrics returned, which is what an agent needs. The one residual ambiguity – whether these are aggregate counts or actor records, especially given sibling get_post_likes – is minor but real.

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 coverage is 100%: the uri parameter already documents 'A bsky.app link or an at:// URI' and the account parameter explains account selection and defaults. The description's 'by URL or at:// URI' simply restates the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

It names the exact data returned (likes, reposts, replies, quotes) and the resource (a single post), and it orients the agent against a sibling by calling itself 'the one-post version of rank_posts.' The verb is implicit in a noun phrase rather than stated, and it never distinguishes itself from single-metric siblings like get_post_likes or get_quotes, 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?

Usage is only implied: the 'one-post version of rank_posts' phrasing suggests it is the single-post counterpart of a multi-post ranking tool. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against the overlapping siblings (get_post_likes, get_quotes, get_reposted_by), and no precondition noted.

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