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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that results include per-post outcome status and any platform errors, which is useful, but it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, require authentication, or note any side effects or limitations. The description is too minimal to adequately convey behavioral traits.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core concept and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, achieving high conciseness.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential output ('post history with outcome status and any platform errors') but lacks details such as ordering, filtering, or what 'recent' means exactly. It is minimally viable but incomplete in helping an agent fully understand the tool's behavior and context.

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?

The single parameter 'limit' is already fully described in the schema with type, range, and default (1-50, default 20). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter semantics completely.

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 'Recent post history with per-post outcome status and any platform errors' clearly implies listing published posts with status/error details, distinguishing it from siblings like list_drafts and list_scheduled_posts. However, 'recent post history' is a bit vague and does not explicitly state it returns a list, relying on the tool name for the verb.

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 description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_drafts or get_post_receipt. It implies usage for checking recent posting status, but there are no explicit exclusions or contextual cues about when to choose one tool over another.

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