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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are scoped to this workspace and returned 'newest scheduled time first', which the schema does not convey. It omits pagination behavior and the default page size, keeping it below a 5.

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 front-loaded sentences with the resource and ordering stated first and the filters second. The long status enumeration is verbose but functional; nothing is redundant.

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 read-only, three-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, ordering, and every filter. Return shape and pagination details are the only meaningful gaps, and those are partially mitigated by the limit parameter's schema note.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning by enumerating the nine valid status values, which the schema's 'Comma-separated statuses' does not. It also clarifies that account filtering is single-account ('and account' mapping to account_id). The limit parameter is not discussed beyond the schema's default note.

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 ('List posts in this workspace') plus the ordering, which lets an agent distinguish it from get_post and the write-side siblings like create_draft or schedule_post. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter discussion: use this to browse or filter posts by status and account. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to get_post for fetching a single post, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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