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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does so usefully: newest-first ordering, inclusion of per-network status, and the implicit note that the body text is not returned here. Return-shape detail (fields, paging behavior) is only partly covered.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler. The scope and ordering are front-loaded, and the get_post routing hint is placed where it is immediately actionable.

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 purely read-only, four-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it returns (posts with per-network status), ordering, and where to go for full content. Pagination is handled by the documented limit parameter; only explicit return-field enumeration is absent.

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 every parameter (from, to, limit, status) is already documented with format and defaults in the schema. The description's mention of the four statuses largely restates the status enum rather than adding new semantics. Baseline 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?

Names the resource (posts in PersonaXpand) and enumerates the states covered (drafts, scheduled, published, failed) plus ordering (newest first). It also explicitly separates itself from get_post, which returns the full text of a single post. The only weakness is that the listing verb is implied by the name rather than stated outright.

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 closing clause about get_post gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it (need the full text of one post, not a list). It does not cover other adjacent siblings such as get_analytics_summary or list_reply_drafts, but the core routing decision is clear.

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