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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations by disclosing the sort order (newest first), the output shape (summary, category, tags, URL), and the optional category filter. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then the ordering and output fields, then the optional filter. Every sentence 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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and ordering, and the annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior. It could add a note about limit/pagination behavior or an explicit pointer to get_article for full post content, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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 only 33%: only 'locale' is described. The description adds meaning for 'category' by saying users can filter by it, but it does not explain 'limit' or how ordering interacts with that parameter. The enum values and defaults help, but the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 verb 'Lista' (lists) and the resource 'posts publicados do blog' (published blog posts), and specifies the returned fields: summary, category, tags, and URL. It also names the ordering ('mais novo primeiro'), which distinguishes it from 'get_article' and other sibling tools that fetch single items or different content types.

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 gives clear usage context: it is for listing published blog posts with optional category filtering. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the blog-post scope and ordering make its role evident relative to siblings like get_article, list_studies, and search_library.

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