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

The annotations already carry readOnlyHint and destructiveHint safety, so the read-only behavior is known. The description adds little beyond that—there is no mention of ordering, pagination, or how the list is scoped, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 description is short, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists status options in an easy-to-scan line. It wastes little space, though the first sentence is largely a restatement of the tool title.

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 simple read-only list tool with two fully documented parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is almost complete enough. The remaining gap is mainly the sibling choice between posts_list and posts_list_failed, which belongs more to usage routing than basic invocation context.

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 limit and status are already fully documented with defaults and value options. The description only repeats the status values from the schema without adding deeper meaning, so it stays at the high-coverage baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'List posts' with optional filtering by status. It gives enough scope to distinguish from post creation, retrieval, and deletion siblings, though it does not explicitly disambiguate from the near name posts_list_failed.

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: browse posts, optionally narrowed by status, with clear status options listed. However, the description never says when not to use it or which sibling alternative to choose, especially since posts_list_failed also exists and overlaps with the failed status.

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