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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: the default time window, the dramatically widened window for draft/approval queries, and the meaning of each status (pending_approval waits on the owner, partial means some accounts failed). That is exactly the context needed to avoid missing drafts.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the window default leads, the draft edge case follows, and the sibling pointer closes. The status enumeration partially duplicates the schema enum, though the added meanings justify most of it.

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 no output schema, the description does not describe the shape of returned post objects or whether drafts are always merged in by default, which leaves mild ambiguity in the opening sentence. The critical calling behavior — window defaults, status filtering, ordering, timezone — is fully covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that the from/to window is optional and what happens when it is omitted, and by glossing the status enum values semantically rather than just listing them. It does not add format detail beyond the schema's ISO 8601/unix notes.

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 makes clear this retrieves multiple posts constrained by a time window, and it distinguishes itself from get_post ("Use get_post for one post"). It is written as a noun fragment ("Posts in a time window...") rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 default window (last 7 days to next 30 days), the special case (status=draft/pending_approval with no window widens to 90 days back through 5 years ahead), and the alternative for single-post retrieval. An agent can pick this tool and predict its behavior without guessing.

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