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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does disclose two useful behavioral facts: results are scoped to the caller's own content and are ordered newest first. It omits anything about pagination behavior, whether unauthenticated calls fail, and how drafts/rejected posts appear relative to the status default.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource scope, content types, and ordering each earn their place in the clause.

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 tool with three fully undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains pagination, status filtering, or what a returned post contains, so an agent cannot call it confidently beyond the defaults.

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 0% and the description says nothing about limit, offset, or status. In particular the status enum (draft, pending_review, published, rejected, all) is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess at filtering semantics.

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), a precisely scoped resource (the authenticated user's posts), and disambiguates the content types (articles and short posts). The scope phrase 'authenticated user's' cleanly separates this from sibling tools like admin_list_posts and search_posts without needing to name them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer that search_posts, search_public_posts, or get_feed are the right choice in other situations, and nothing tells it when this tool is preferred over them.

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