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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds sort order and the returned fields (no output schema exists), but says nothing about pagination or the default/maximum result count, which matters for a list operation.

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 tight sentences with the core behavior (list published posts, newest first, fields returned) front-loaded. The trailing filter hint is short and relevant, though slightly softer than the leading content.

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?

Given 3 optional params, no output schema, and present annotations, the description covers the essentials of what is returned and how to filter. It still omits limit semantics (default 50, max 200) and pagination behavior, which an agent needs for a list tool.

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%: locale is documented, but limit and category are not. The description compensates partially by explaining that category acts as a filter, but it adds nothing about limit, pagination, or the meaning of the locale parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Lista') and resource ('posts publicados do blog'), plus sort order (newest first) and the fields returned (summary, category, tags, URL). This clearly separates it from the singular sibling get_article, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 clause 'Filtre por categoria se quiser' signals that category filtering is optional, which is useful implied usage. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this list tool versus search_library or get_article for retrieval, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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