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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — only *published* posts are returned — but says nothing about ordering, default result size behavior, or pagination beyond the schema's limit field.

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 zero filler, front-loading the resource scope before the optional filter. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 simple filtered-list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema documents both parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not indicate result ordering or how the published-only constraint interacts with categories, a minor remaining gap given there is no output schema to explain returns.

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 parameters (limit with default 20 and category_slug) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only echoes the category filter concept and adds no syntax, format, or slug-convention detail beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('posts publicados do blog editorial da ER+') with a clear scope constraint that published-only posts are returned. This distinguishes it in substance from the singular sibling get_blog_post, though it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly to earn 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?

'Opcionalmente filtra por categoria' implies a browsing/listing use case and notes the filter is optional, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition for choosing between this and get_blog_post, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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