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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations don't: pagination is bounded, and timestamps come back in UTC with the workspace timezone reported, which tells the agent how to interpret returned dates.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the purpose/scope is front-loaded ahead of the return-value note. Appropriately sized, though 'bounded pagination' is slightly vague where the schema already caps limit at 100.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate returned fields, and it covers scope, pagination bounds, and timezone semantics. It is close to complete for a filtered-list tool, missing only explicit routing guidance versus sibling list/get tools.

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 83%, so the schema already documents from/to, limit, status, and platform thoroughly. The description adds nothing about any parameter, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ('List posts') and adds scope ('in the authorized workspace') plus a behavioral constraint ('bounded pagination'). It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like get_post or list_post_analytics, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this tool over get_post/list_post_analytics, and no stated exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the name and 'authorized workspace' scope.

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