Post

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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it consumes paid API credits, requires confirm=true for the approved call, and reconciles the read-like nature with the readOnlyHint=false annotation by clarifying it does not publish to social platforms. No return cost/rate specifics, but strong added value.

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?

Front-loaded with what is fetched and returned, then trails with the credit/confirm constraints. Two sentences, no filler; only the redundant restatement of field names costs it a top mark.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it does so explicitly (record text, author info, embed, counts, threaded replies). Combined with the credit/confirm disclosure, an agent has what it needs to call correctly; minor gaps remain on pagination of the replies array.

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 coverage is 100%, so url, account, and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the confirm=true prerequisite (which is also derivable from the schema) and no syntax or format details beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches a single Bluesky post'), names the exact lookup key (by URL), and enumerates the returned fields. The singular 'post' clearly distinguishes it from sibling bluesky_posts (plural) without needing to open either schema.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'single post by URL,' and it surfaces a prerequisite (requires confirm=true), but it never states when to prefer this over bluesky_posts, bluesky_profile, or other single-post-fetch siblings, and names no exclusions.

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