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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: cursor scoping to caller and workspace, the requirement to keep filters stable across pages, and that includeApproval is opt-in for backward compatibility. Return shape is still undescribed, keeping it below top marks.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler; the core action and scope come first, followed by optional filters and then pagination rules. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 7-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, opt-in fields, and pagination discipline, which is most of what a caller needs. It omits page-size semantics (limit bounds are only in the schema) and any hint at the result shape, a minor but real gap.

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 71%, so the schema carries most of the weight, and the description mostly restates the same filters (status, approvalStatus, channelKey, includeApproval). It does add the useful semantic point that approvalStatus operates independently of publishing status, but limit and workspaceId get no added meaning. Baseline 3 fits.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read posts") and constrains scope emphatically to ONE Agency Workspace, which implicitly separates it from the account-wide list_posts sibling. It never names a sibling explicitly (e.g. company_get_post for a single post), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives solid pagination guidance (follow nextCursor with unchanged filters, cursor scoped to caller and workspace) but says nothing about when to prefer this over list_posts or company_get_post, nor any prerequisites such as membership in the workspace. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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