See who reposted a post

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations already disclose (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not mention pagination, authentication needs, rate limits, or any output formatting. Unlike the high-calibration example, it provides no extra context such as filtering scope or side effects.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundancy or wasted words. It fully captures the tool's purpose without padding, making it easy to read and understand quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with four well-documented parameters, the description is adequate but minimal. It tells the agent what the response conceptually contains (accounts that reposted) but does not explain cursor pagination mechanics beyond what the schema already provides. Since there is no output schema, a bit more context about the structure of results could improve completeness, but the tool is not complex.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters (uri, limit, cursor, account), so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'The accounts that reposted a specific post' clearly identifies the resource (reposters of a post) and distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on likes or quotes. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'fetch' or 'list', the meaning is unambiguous and the scope is specific.

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 implies a use case (e.g., when you need to see which accounts reposted a post) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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