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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: result ordering (newest first), the status buckets included, and that published entries carry links. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

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 sentences, no filler. The scope and ordering come first, and the sibling exclusion is placed last as a single clause. Every element (statuses, ordering, links, exclusion) earns its place.

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 three-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the status categories and noting that published posts include links, effectively sketching the return shape. What a post object contains beyond that (author, timestamps, per-status counts) is still unspecified.

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%, with skip and limit documented inline (offset default 0, limit 1..50 default 20), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only conveys that the listing is scoped to 'the Title', which maps to title_id but adds no format or identity details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the Title's X posts'), plus ordering ('newest first') and the full set of statuses returned (drafts, pending approval, scheduled, published, failed). It explicitly names the sibling it is not ('Replies to people are not here — see get_social_inbox'), so an agent can distinguish it from get_social_inbox and get_social_overview without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear exclusion plus the alternative: replies belong to get_social_inbox. That is a real routing rule, not just implied usage. It doesn't cover other adjacent siblings (get_social, get_social_overview, list_my_titles), so it stops short of a full when-to-use map.

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