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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantive behavioral details: results are paginated, include platform statuses and metrics, and are ordered newest-first by publishedAt, else scheduledAt, else createdAt. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words: the first states the action and filters, the second covers return behavior and ordering, and the third gives usage context. Information is front-loaded and the structure is easy to scan.

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 11 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: filter types, pagination, ordering, and the nature of returned data (platform statuses and metrics). It doesn't enumerate every output field, but what it provides is sufficient for most calling scenarios.

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 input schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description summarizes filters (status, search text, date range, channel, label) but does not add deeper semantics beyond grouping what the schema already describes.

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 clearly states the action ('List posts') and resource, and enumerates the optional filters (status, search text, date range, channel, label). The phrase 'as raw data (not the visual dashboard)' distinguishes it from the sibling view_posts, making the tool's identity clear.

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 description explicitly says 'Use this when the user wants to browse, filter, or check the status of existing posts as raw data' and contrasts with 'the visual dashboard'. It provides clear context and an exclusion, but doesn't name the alternative sibling (view_posts) directly.

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