List social posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds location scoping and the optional account/date filters as context. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or the implication of openWorldHint (results may drift as posts publish externally), leaving room for more behavioral detail without contradicting 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose leads, and the optional filters follow immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with readOnlyHint=true and no required parameters, the description covers purpose, location scope, and the two key filters. Missing details like pagination and the full type enumeration are modest gaps given the low-risk read context; no output schema exists, so a bit more return-shape guidance would push it to a 5.

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 low (43%), so the description carries compensating load. It does address accountIds ('filter by account ids') and date range with ISO 8601 format (fromDate/toDate). However, skip and limit have no schema description and are not mentioned at all, and the full type enum (including draft, in_review, failed) is not conveyed. Partial compensation only.

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 (List), resource (social posts), and scope (for the location), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like ghl_get_social_post and ghl_list_social_accounts. Slightly imprecise: it says 'scheduled/published' while the type enum also supports all, draft, in_review, and failed — the default is 'all' — so the description understates the full status set, which keeps it from a 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions ghl_get_social_post (for retrieving a single post) or ghl_list_social_accounts, and offers no when-not instructions or conditions that would select a sibling. Usage context is only implied by the name and purpose.

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