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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The added value is the enumerated status lifecycle (draft, scheduled, published, failed, needs_approval), which tells the agent what states it can find, but no pagination, ordering, or scope limits are disclosed.

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 English sentence is front-loaded and earns its place, but the appended French translation adds length without adding information for the agent. The listing of returned fields and status values is useful, so the structure is adequate but padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the return shape (content, per-network versions, status, scheduled date) so the agent knows what it gets back. It is missing ordering/pagination behavior, which is the main residual gap for a list tool.

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 33% (only status has a description), so the description must compensate. It does clarify that status and a count/limit filter exist, but it does not explain workspace_uuid, the 1-100 bounds on limit, the default of 20, or the 'by count' meaning with any precision.

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) and resource (a workspace's posts) and enumerates what is returned: content, per-network versions, status, scheduled date. This clearly separates it from sibling get_post (single post) and get_top_posts (ranked subset).

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?

It says the listing is filterable by status and by count, which implies the browsing use case, but it never states when to prefer this over get_post, get_top_posts, or list_accounts, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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