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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the matching criteria (shared tags and content similarity), but does not mention return format, whether the given post is excluded, error behavior (e.g., non-existent slug), or ordering. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.

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 a single sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every word 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 read tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and use case. It could mention the return list shape or edge cases, but the schema covers parameter limits and the tool's simplicity makes it reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the matching mechanism, but does not add meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states (slug is the reference post, limit caps results). No extra semantic nuance is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('posts related to a given post'), and explains the mechanism ('by shared tags and content similarity') and purpose ('for recommendations'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post (single post) and search_posts (general search).

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 phrase 'for recommendations' provides clear context for when to use the tool, implying it is for recommendation scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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