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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context by stating that read scope is required and by describing the queue contents.

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 two short sentences, front-loads the resource scope, and then states the auth requirement. There is no wasted wording.

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 optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers what kind of queue is being listed and the required scope. It does not mention default status behavior or pagination, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it is adequate for correct invocation.

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 status parameter and its enum values are fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of proposed, scheduled, and published posts gives partial semantic context, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 identifies the resource as the post queue and enumerates the kinds of posts it contains, which makes the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings such as posts_get or posts_create, so it stops 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?

It gives context that this lists the post queue and notes the required read scope, implying usage for browsing posts. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like posts_get or when not to use it, leaving routing guidance mostly implied.

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