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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still contributes the result ordering (newest edit first) and the returned field set, including per-language translation state, which the annotations do not provide. It leaves default pagination and whether trashed posts are included by default unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the returned fields, then filters — a logical order with no filler. The trailing 'Read-only.' restates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the one non-earning sentence.

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 four optional parameters and no output schema, the description does the important compensating work by enumerating exactly what each result contains and how results are ordered. Only default pagination behavior is missing, a minor gap for a filtered list tool.

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?

At 50% schema coverage the description partially compensates: it clarifies that status filtering exists and that a free-text 'search phrase' drives the q parameter (schema says 'substring of title or excerpt'). The limit parameter (1-50) has no description anywhere, and the site parameter's single-site fallback is only explained in the schema, not the description.

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 names a specific resource (blog posts of a site in this workspace), the sort order (newest edit first), and the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It lacks an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with blog_get_post for fetching a single post's full body, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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?

It states the two supported narrowing modes ('Filter by status or a search phrase'), which hints at when to use it for browsing or searching posts. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when blog_get_post or blog_update_post would be the better call.

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