get_post_history

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 the tool 'Returns posts' but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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 two sentences: one stating the purpose and another describing the return data. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more comprehensive given the lack of annotations.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the return format structure, pagination, error conditions, or operational constraints. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the comprehensive parameter schema.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond mentioning 'optional filters' generically. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema.

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 as 'List post history with optional filters' and specifies what data is returned ('posts with their status, content, platforms, and scheduling info'). It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('post history'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post' or 'get_post_analytics'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_post' (for single post details) or 'get_post_analytics' (for performance metrics). It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what scenarios this tool is designed for.

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