List today's BIT101 posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by saying 'Return'. It adds valuable context about the Asia/Shanghai timezone determining the day boundary. No contradictory or misleading behavior is stated, and the description does not claim anything beyond what the tool does.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the purpose, resource, and timezone. Every word is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 list operation with zero required parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the essential contextual detail: the resource, the time scope, and the timezone boundary. Nothing critical for invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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%, and the only parameter 'limit' is fully documented in the schema as 'Maximum posts to return' with defaults and bounds. The description does not add additional parameter behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('BIT101 posts'), and an unambiguous scope ('created today in Asia/Shanghai time'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_posts and get_post by focusing on today's posts. The addition of the timezone disambiguates the meaning of 'today'.

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 clearly communicates that this tool returns today's BIT101 posts, implying it is the choice when the agent needs a list of posts from the current day in Asia/Shanghai time. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough relative to siblings such as search_posts and get_post.

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