getPostCountsAll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions access requirements (Academic Research/Enterprise) which is valuable context, but doesn't describe what 'time-bucketed' means in practice, the format of returned counts, whether results are paginated, rate limits, or error conditions. For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose followed by important constraints. Every element (time-bucketed, all posts, full archive, access requirements) serves a purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the access requirement into a second sentence for clarity.

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 6-parameter counting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and access requirements but lacks details about return format, pagination, error handling, and how parameters interact. The 100% schema coverage helps, but behavioral aspects remain underspecified given the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it implies the tool works on 'all posts (full archive)' which contextualizes the time/ID parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic guidance about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get time-bucketed post counts for all posts' specifies the verb (get), resource (post counts), and key behavior (time-bucketed). It distinguishes from sibling 'getPostCountsRecent' by specifying 'full archive' scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other counting/search tools like 'searchAll' or 'searchRecent'.

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 provides some usage context: 'requires Academic Research or Enterprise access' indicates prerequisites, and 'full archive' implies it should be used for historical data rather than recent posts (contrasting with 'getPostCountsRecent'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'searchAll' or provide clear exclusion criteria beyond access requirements.

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