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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description reinforces this with "Does not change anything." It adds genuine value beyond annotations by disclosing that each post's current rev is returned, which matters for downstream write calls. It does not mention pagination defaults/limits beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, immediately followed by the highest-value usage hint, then related tools. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 search tool with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, key routing, and the notable rev return value. It omits guidance on combining filters or pagination use, which would round it out but are not strictly required here.

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 all nine parameters are already documented, including awaiting_review being the review queue. The description restates the filter set without adding syntax, format, or interaction details (e.g., how from/to combine with status), 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 verb and resource ("Finds posts") and enumerates the filter dimensions (status, channel, date range, angle, pillar, text) plus the returned field (current rev). It is clearly distinguishable from get_post (single-post fetch) and search_assets (different resource).

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 a concrete routing instruction ("Use awaiting_review to open the review queue") and names related tools (get_post, approve_posts, review_post). It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or which sibling supersedes it for a given query shape.

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