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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description earns credit for adding matching semantics (case-insensitive across title, description and body), ordering (newest updated first), and the explicit exclusion of the post body. It stops short of pagination/truncation behavior, 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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: what it returns, how to chain it, how matching works. No filler and each sentence carries distinct 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?

Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description usefully previews the returned fields and emphasizes the body is omitted, which prevents a wrong assumption about payload size. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented including defaults and bounds. The description restates the query matching semantics and the omit-to-list behavior but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 ('Find or list published posts') and scopes it to published posts only. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_post_markdown, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'Use this first to discover slugs, then call get_post_markdown for the full text,' and states the condition that selects the other mode ('omit query to list the newest posts'). Nothing is left to inference.

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