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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: results are limited to groups the key can access, drafts are hidden by default, and each returned post carries its social_group_id. No pagination or auth detail is added, which keeps it from 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?

Four short sentences with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('made here or in the Sociro app', 'Read only') but nothing is wasted.

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, zero-required listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, default draft behavior and the shape of returned items. It could still note pagination behavior (page/per_page defaults) but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 86%, so the schema already documents from/to, status, order, per_page and social_group_id thoroughly. The description's 'Filter by group, status and date' and the DRAFT caveat largely restate schema content, adding no new syntax or interaction details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (posts) and scopes it to 'the social groups this key can use', which tells an agent this is the collection endpoint. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_plan_posts or get_post, but the resource and scope are 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?

The description gives filtering context ('Filter by group, status and date') and the important default that drafts are excluded unless status DRAFT is requested, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it never says when to pick this over list_plan_posts or get_post, so the alternative-selection guidance is only implied.

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