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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that filtering dimensions exist, without disclosing pagination behavior, result ordering, or how empty results are signaled. That is acceptable but thin against an already-safe read tool.

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 short sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. The state enumeration partially duplicates the schema enum, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and its coverage of the three optional filters aligns with the schema. For a simple zero-required-parameter list tool this is essentially sufficient; only the sibling routing guidance is missing.

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 limit (default 20, max 50), state, and search. The description restates the filterable fields and the state values, adding no format, default, or matching semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Lists posts in the workspace') and enumerates the dimensions it can filter on, so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like autoposter_get_post or autoposter_get_post_status, which an agent must infer.

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?

Usage is implied by the filtering capabilities (browse/filter posts in bulk), but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over autoposter_get_post for a single post or get_post_status. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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