uw_potus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool exposes two distinct data domains (social posts and a public schedule) but says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or data availability windows beyond what annotations provide.

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 framing sentences followed by a tight bulleted command list; every line carries information and the tool's identity is front-loaded in the first clause. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and an empty input schema, the description should explain how an agent actually selects between posts and schedule, yet there is no 'command' parameter in the schema and none is implied by the description's parameter lists. An agent knows what data exists but not the invocation mechanism, which is a material gap.

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?

The input schema declares zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description is the only place any parameter information appears. It usefully documents limit, page, search_term (posts) and date, limit, page (schedule), though it provides no types, defaults, or date format.

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 ('Access') and a precisely scoped resource ('UnusualWhales data on the President of the United States'), then enumerates the two subcommands (posts, schedule). The presidential scope cleanly distinguishes it from uw_congress, uw_insider, and uw_news without the agent needing to open other schemas.

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?

'Useful for tracking potentially market-moving statements and events' implies when the tool is relevant, which is more than nothing. However, it names no alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no comparison to sibling tools like uw_news or uw_congress that might also surface political content.

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