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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that results are filterable and paginated, which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, default page size, or whether unpublished posts require extra permissions despite advertising a 'draft' status filter.

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 resource and the filtering capability front-loaded and no filler. 'With pagination support' is slightly vague about how pagination works, 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?

With five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description is too thin for the ambiguity it leaves: an agent cannot tell whether to pass domain or site_id, nor what a response looks like. For a simple list tool this is workable but under-specified.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It supplies the concrete status values (draft, published) that the schema lacks, but leaves the two site-scoping parameters (domain vs. site_id) completely unexplained, including which takes precedence if both are supplied.

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+resource ('List blog posts for a site'), which clearly separates it from the singular 'get_post' sibling. It does not explicitly name the sibling or draw the distinction in words, so it stops 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?

The mention of filtering by status and pagination implies the intended use case (browsing a collection rather than fetching one post), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like get_post or search.

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