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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It communicates a read-only list of published posts and the URL fields returned, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, scope (e.g., current trainer vs any trainer), or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the key verb, resource, status filter, and return detail are all front-loaded.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-shape concerns are reduced, and the description covers the main purpose. However, it is incomplete for a five-parameter tool: an agent cannot tell from the description which optional filters are available or how they behave.

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 compensate for the five undocumented parameters. It does not explain limit, language, platform, coach_slug, or channel_slug, nor their defaults or filtering behavior.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('published trainer social posts') and adds output detail (canonical and original source URLs). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_social_post_draft, publish_social_post, or list_lesson_options.

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 intended use is implied: retrieve published trainer social posts. The word 'published' hints at when it applies, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, such as when drafts should go to create_social_post_draft.

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