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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, a hard cap of 100 with no paging, and the exact fields returned per post (id, copy, channels, tags, editorial stage, schedule, reviewer). Only the absence of any indication of empty-result or error behavior keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and its default, then return shape, then limits, then sibling routing. No filler sentences; each clause carries distinct decision-relevant 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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and stating the result cap and lack of paging. Combined with the annotations and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents limit defaults/max, the status enum with its default, and the editorial_status enum values. The description largely echoes those values ('default 20, max 100', 'defaults to drafts') rather than adding interpretation, so the baseline 3 applies. The only extra semantic signal is 'newest first', which clarifies ordering in the absence of a sort parameter.

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'), the scoping dimension ('by publishing status, newest first'), and the default ('Defaults to drafts'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from list_scheduled_posts, list_recent_posts and list_posts_awaiting_my_review.

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?

Names the intended precursor use case (find a post's id before get_post, update_draft, schedule_post) and explicitly routes three alternative intents — what's going out and when, what did I post, posts awaiting my review — to the correct sibling tools. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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