See who quoted a post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description instead adds a semantic distinction about quotes vs reposts, which is useful context but not behavioral disclosure (no pagination, rate-limit, or return-shape notes).

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, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the differentiating commentary. Zero filler.

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 read-only paginated query with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. No output schema exists, but the return concept (quote posts) is reasonable to infer; only minor gaps remain.

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 100% (uri, limit, cursor, account all documented with examples), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as URI format or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 states the resource precisely — 'Posts that quote a specific post' — and contrasts it with reposts, so an agent can distinguish the concept from a sibling like get_reposted_by. It stops short of naming the retrieval verb or the sibling tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives a genuine usage signal: 'This is where the argument about a post usually lives: quotes carry commentary, reposts do not,' which tells the agent to reach for this when the user wants discussion/commentary. It does not name the specific alternatives (get_reposted_by, get_post_likes) or state exclusions, so no 5.

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