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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It reveals that results are summaries (not full body), ordered by publish date (newest first), and that filters are ANDed together. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or error conditions, but for a list tool the disclosed behaviors are substantial and useful.

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?

The first three sentences are concise and informative, leading with the main purpose, then return order and filter behavior. However, the final sentence about 'Walnai contact follow-up' is irrelevant to invoking the tool and adds noise. This prevents a higher score for conciseness.

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?

Considering the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description covers key context: what is returned (summaries), ordering, filter semantics, and a use case. It lacks explicit return structure details or pagination info, but the description is adequate for a straightforward list tool with well-schematized parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described in detail. The description adds value by explaining that filters are combined with AND logic, which is not obvious from the individual parameter schemas. It also summarizes the three filter types, reinforcing the schema's meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Lists'), a defined resource ('Walnai blog post summaries'), and explicit scope ('no body content'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming 'GetBlogPost' as the way to fetch a specific post, making the tool's role clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to discover what blog posts exist before fetching a specific one with GetBlogPost.' This names an alternative tool and defines the appropriate context. The description also implies that full body content is not available here, so users seeking full posts should use GetBlogPost.

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