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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description earns credit for adding what annotations can't: results are published-only, ordered newest first, and drafts are private. The auth/connection requirement is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond structured data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and sort order before the filters. The second sentence is dense — two semicolon-separated clauses about draft privacy and the Microsoft connection — but each clause carries distinct routing information.

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 four-param, fully annotated read tool with an output schema, this covers purpose, default ordering, filter scope, exclusion of drafts, and the sibling + auth path for drafts. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and each parameter already documents itself (tag name or slug, author name or slug, YYYY-MM-DD since, limit default 20). The description only restates the filter set at a high level without adding semantics such as combining filters or the limit cap, so baseline 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 resource and scope: 'TechFabric's published blog posts, newest first,' plus the three optional filters. It also explicitly excludes drafts and names list_drafts as the tool that handles them, so an agent can separate it from that sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly sets the condition for this tool (published posts, optionally filtered) and routes drafts to list_drafts, including the prerequisite that a TechFabric engineer must connect with Microsoft to list/write drafts. It does not differentiate from other read siblings like search or get_page, but the listing role is unambiguous.

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