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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior – the sort order differs by post status – which goes beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination, the default limit of 50, or that status filtering changes ordering, all of which matter for this 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key behavioral nuance is not buried. Nothing here can be cut without losing information.

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 seven optional parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description is thin – it never says what a returned page looks like (the cursor schema references a `next` reply) or how filters and sort order combine. The rich schema carries most of the weight, but one more sentence on pagination and the filter/sort interaction would make this complete.

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 86%, so per-parameter meaning is largely already documented in the schema (including the from/until scheduled-vs-published semantics and cursor). The description adds the ordering rule but does not clarify how status filters interact with that ordering or explain the limit/cursor pairing beyond what the schema states. 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?

"List posts" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the parenthetical ordering rule (scheduled posts soonest-first, everything else newest-first) sharpens what the result set looks like. It never distinguishes itself from siblings like posts_search or posts_recent, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which listing tool to pick.

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 only implied: a general browse/list operation with a described sort order hints at the default 'show me my posts' case. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to posts_recent, posts_search, or posts_lookup, which are the obvious alternatives.

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