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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions pagination, optional filtering by tag and date, and sorting, which are key behavioral traits. It also notes that it returns only published posts. This is transparent for a read-only list tool, though it doesn't state defaults (like sort order) or error handling, but those are covered in 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?

The description is two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and supporting details (pagination, filters, sort) efficiently listed. No wasted words or redundant information.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple list tool: it names the resource, return fields, pagination, and optional filters. It does not need to explain return values in detail since there is no output schema, but the field list in parentheses provides essential context. Sibling tools are not referenced, but the description's scope is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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 all five parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level mention of 'tag slug', 'publish date', and 'sort', but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already fully explains each parameter.

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 ('List') and resource ('published MojaLab blog posts') and specifies the returned fields (title, slug, excerpt, tags, date). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_post (single post) and search_posts (full-text search), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 states the tool lists published posts with pagination and optional filters (tag slug, publish date, sort), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the filter capabilities imply it is for browsing/filtering rather than single-record retrieval or full-text search.

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