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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful default-scope behavior (all authorized workspaces unless narrowed), but says nothing about result ordering, page size defaults, or what an exhausted cursor returns. Adequate but thin beyond 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 most important fact (default scope) front-loaded and zero filler. Slightly terse relative to what a list tool could convey, but nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter, zero-required read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering, and pagination. The remaining gap (ordering and result shape) is minor and partly excused by the absence of an output schema requirement.

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 the schema already documents limit, cursor, status, and workspaceId. The description only restates status filtering and cursor pagination without adding format, default, or interaction details, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List posts') plus the default scope ('across every authorized workspace'), which is meaningful detail. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_post or list_post_performance, but the collection-vs-single distinction is implied by the verb.

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 implied: the description notes the default all-workspace scope and that filtering by status and cursor paging are supported, hinting that workspaceId narrows results. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_post for a single post).

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