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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the exact shape of the returned table (content preview, channels, dates, post IDs), plus the non-obvious *(per-platform)* marker convention that governs how the preview should be read.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct payload: scope, filtering, return shape, and the per-platform reading rule with a routing instruction. Nothing is repeated and the per-platform caveat — the hardest thing to get wrong — is given last as an explicit action.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the returned table columns and the preview convention. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all three parameters, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% — limit, offset, and the four status values are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the status filter but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('List posts in the workspace') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling get_post by naming it as the tool to call for full per-platform variants. An agent can tell this apart from list_media, list_folders, and other list_* siblings without opening a schema.

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 clear usage context: filter by status for drafts/scheduled/published/failed, and route to get_post when the *(per-platform)* suffix appears. It names the alternative and the condition that selects it, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g. for a single known post ID).

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