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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the required auth scope (read:posts) and the cost model ("Free"), both of which are absent from structured fields; "changes nothing" is somewhat redundant with the 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?

Two short sentences with the payload (returned fields) front-loaded and the operational constraints (permission, cost, no side effects) trailing. No filler or repetition beyond the mildly redundant "changes nothing".

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it covers auth and cost for a read tool. The remaining gap is the ambiguity of "recent" — no time window, ordering, or truncation behavior is specified, which matters for a list tool capped at 50 items.

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?

There is a single parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it and the baseline of 3 applies. The description says nothing about the limit, pagination, ordering of results, or what happens when more posts exist than the cap allows.

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 a specific resource scope (scheduled and recent posts), then enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like soclo_posts_save_drafts or soclo_posts_reschedule. It does not explicitly name the nearest read sibling (soclo_posts_drafts / soclo_post_status), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Needs read:posts" gives the precondition for use, and "scheduled and recent posts" implies the retrieval context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to alternatives such as soclo_posts_drafts for draft-only listing or soclo_posts_get_draft for a single draft, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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