Rank your posts by a metric

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 covered. The description usefully narrows scope to published posts and enumerates rankable metrics, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape, adding only moderate value beyond the 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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the supported metrics, with zero filler.

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 ranking tool with no output schema and four of five parameters effectively usable, the description covers intent and metric options adequately. Minor gaps remain: no mention of the default limit, offset-based pagination, or whether drafts are excluded beyond 'published'.

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 60% and the description restates a set of metrics that overlaps the schema's order_by values without adding syntax or mapping ('paid conversions' vs the schema's 'paid_signups'). The offset parameter has no description anywhere in schema or description, so the description does not fully compensate for the gap; baseline 3.

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 ('Rank published posts by a performance metric') plus a value framing ('what actually worked'), which is easy to distinguish from data siblings like get_post_stats or get_analytics. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

The purpose implies when to reach for it (comparing post performance), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative such as get_post_stats. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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