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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds practical behavioral context not in the annotations: results are workspace-wide and can number in the hundreds, so the limit should stay small. It omits pagination behavior, but that gap is minor against the annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the call scenarios, then the practical size caveat. No filler or restatement of the name/title.

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 read-only, fully-schema-documented list tool with annotations covering safety, the description supplies everything needed to decide when to call it. The only omission is any hint at the shape/ordering of returned items, which is a minor gap with no output schema present.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema itself (limit default/cap, status enum values). The description only restates the intent to filter by status and keep limit small, adding little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list posts) scoped to 'this workspace' and enumerates the statuses covered (drafts, scheduled, published, failed). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list_evergreen or check_draft, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 three concrete 'call this when' scenarios: checking what exists before writing, verifying a draft was saved, and answering 'what is scheduled this week'. Clear context, but it names no alternative tool or explicit when-not condition (e.g. versus check_draft for a single draft).

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