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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context about pagination (cursor-based, pass next_cursor for next page) and the fields returned (slug, title, summary, date, author, URLs). This aligns with the calibration example (get_calls) where description adds scoping beyond annotations and scored 3. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose (lists posts newest first) and then logically covers pagination and return item composition. No filler words, every clause earns its place. It is extremely concise while remaining informative.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return items (fields) and the pagination mechanism (next_cursor). It gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly and iterate through pages. Given the low complexity and strong annotation coverage, nothing essential 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 both limit and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds a slight clarification about next_cursor usage ('pass next_cursor back to get the following page') but does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the minimal extra detail doesn't warrant a higher score.

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 states a specific verb ('lists'), a specific resource ('posts from the COTAL build log'), and adds ordering ('newest first') and pagination mode ('cursor pagination'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like cotal_get_post (single post) and cotal_search (search-based lookup), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: it lists posts with pagination and instructs to pass next_cursor back for the following page. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this (e.g., for searching use cotal_search), but the purpose is so specific that an agent would naturally choose it for listing posts. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria, hence not a 5.

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