getPostCountsRecent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'time-bucketed post counts' and 'recent posts (last 7 days)', which gives some context on output format and time constraints. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the counts represent (e.g., aggregated data). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get time-bucketed post counts for recent posts (last 7 days)'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying key 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and time scope but lacks details on output format, error cases, or how parameters like 'query' interact with time constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be beneficial for full completeness.

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 by implying time-bucketing and a default 7-day period, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate significantly.

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 recent posts (last 7 days)'. It specifies the action ('Get'), resource ('post counts'), and scope ('recent posts, last 7 days'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'getPostCountsAll', which likely handles a broader time range. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 implies usage for recent posts (last 7 days), suggesting a temporal context. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getPostCountsAll' or 'searchRecent', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied but not comprehensive.

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