Rank posts by engagement

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 covered. The description adds useful framing that this data is not surfaced natively ('Bluesky shows you none of this'), but says nothing about ordering stability, rate limits, or scoring methodology.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage hints. No padding, though the phrasing 'Your posts, best first' is a little informal and the phantom 'format' clause wastes a 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?

For a zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is adequate: it names the returned metrics and the two most nuanced parameters. But the non-existent 'format' parameter leaves a real ambiguity about what the output can be filtered or shaped by.

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 five parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces days but references a 'format' option that does not exist in the schema, which adds confusion rather than meaning.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (rank your posts by engagement) plus the payload returned (likes, reposts, replies, quotes), which is more specific than the bare title. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_engagement_summary or get_post_stats, so it stops 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?

Offers real usage guidance for two parameters, telling the agent to use days to score a period rather than a fixed count and format to compare media types. However, it names no alternative tool or exclusion, so the agent must infer when rank_posts beats get_engagement_summary or get_author_feed.

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