See who quoted a post

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the behavioral nuance that quotes carry commentary, which is not in the annotations, helping the agent anticipate the kind of content returned. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A two-sentence description with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a valuable distinguishing trait, and every clause serves a function.

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 list tool with a fully described schema and strong annotations, this description is sufficient. It states what is returned, hints at the use (argument discovery), and differentiates from reposts. The absence of output schema is fine because the result is a list of posts. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of all four parameters (uri, limit, cursor, account) with a description for each. The description adds no additional parameter-level details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the structure carries the semantics.

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 clearly states 'Posts that quote a specific post' with a specific verb (get) and resource (quotes). It also contrasts quotes with reposts, distinguishing from siblings like get_reposted_by and indicating the semantic purpose (commentary). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides an implicit usage context: 'This is where the argument about a post usually lives: quotes carry commentary, reposts do not.' This signals that you use this to see quote commentary rather than reposts, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions. The guidance is clear, though indirect.

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