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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds genuinely new context: newest-first ordering and the fields surfaced per item (caption preview, targets, status, failure reason). Pagination behavior is named but the cursor contract itself is left to the schema.

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 tight sentences, with the return shape front-loaded and the filtering/pagination capability second. No filler words or redundancy.

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 enumerates the returned fields and ordering, and covers all three optional parameters at a high level. It stops just short of describing how failures relate to status or what happens to queued items, which would round out a list tool for a post queue.

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 limit, cursor, and status are already fully documented, including the enum and the nextCursor convention. The description's status-filter and pagination mentions restate the schema without adding format or defaulting details, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific resource ('the post queue') and its ordering, making the listing intent clear alongside the title. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as sprkly_get_post_status or sprkly_get_post_approval_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implied usage is browsing the queue, and the mention of a status filter hints at narrowing results. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to the single-post status or approval siblings an agent might otherwise pick.

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