See who reposted a post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral on top of that — no pagination behavior, no empty-result behavior, no rate/visibility caveats.

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 single short fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than truly concise — the brevity comes from omission of any actionable detail. Front-loading is moot when there is only one clause.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description would ideally hint at the return shape (a paginated list of account objects with cursor) — it does not. Given the simple read-only nature and complete schema coverage, a minimum-viable 3 is appropriate but 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%, so all four parameters (uri, limit, cursor, account) are documented in the schema itself. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource (accounts that reposted a given post) but is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it largely restates the tool name 'get_reposted_by'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_post_likes or get_quotes beyond the word 'reposted'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_post_likes, get_quotes, or get_post_stats. No prerequisites, no mention of needing a valid post URI or an authenticated account context.

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