APIbase

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It effectively compensates by specifying return fields (post text, author, reblogs, favourites, replies), authentication requirements (none), and cost structure ($0 upstream). Does not mention rate limits or pagination.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, return value disclosure, and operational constraints (auth/cost). Information is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 no output schema exists, the description adequately compensates by detailing the response structure (post text, author, engagement metrics) and operational constraints. For a simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, this covers the essential contextual gaps.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'limit' parameter. The description does not add semantic meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema already documents the default (10) and maximum (40) values.

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?

Description explicitly identifies the resource ('Trending posts on Mastodon') and scope (Fediverse/decentralized social network), distinguishing it from sibling tools like social.mastodon.tags (trending tags vs posts) and social.bluesky.* (different platform). Uses specific verb-implied action.

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?

Provides implicit usage context by specifying the platform (Mastodon) and resource type (posts), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives like social.mastodon.tags or Bluesky tools. The 'No auth needed' hint is useful but not comparative.

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