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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that captions are truncated at 200 characters, explains the hasMore pagination flag, and prescribes the correct narrowing strategy instead of raising limit. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose then behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place: the truncation warning and hasMore explanation both change how an agent calls the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return-shape essentials an agent needs: the status categories covered, the 200-character caption cap, and the hasMore pagination signal. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 75% (limit, platform and accountId documented; status is enum-only with no description). The description adds practical meaning by naming accountId, platform and status as the preferred narrowing filters and by implying limit is a page size rather than a way to reach older posts.

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 (list) and resource (recent posts) with a clear scope: posts published, scheduled, or failed by the authenticated user. It also implicitly separates itself from get_post_status, which it names as the tool for full caption text.

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 concrete reasons to use it (avoid duplicates, reference past content, audit failures) and routes the agent to get_post_status when full text is needed. It also advises narrowing with accountId/platform/status instead of raising limit, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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