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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: in app-capable hosts the result renders as an interactive panel and the agent must not duplicate its contents. Missing are pagination/ordering semantics for large result sets.

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, each serving a purpose: capability, filtering, and host-rendering behavior. Front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy listing statuses twice (prose and parenthetical).

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering, and return rendering. The remaining gap is pagination semantics (page/limit), which an agent may need for large post collections.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents the status filter (though the enum already lists these values in the schema) but says nothing about page or limit, leaving two of three parameters unexplained. Baseline 3 for partial compensation.

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 (the user's posts), plus ordering ('newest first') and the covered statuses. An agent can distinguish it from get_post (single-item) and list_generations without opening the 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?

Explicitly documents the status-filter use case and enumerates filter values, and adds the important host-conditional rendering instruction. It does not name sibling alternatives (get_post, list_generations) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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