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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: posts are ordered with scheduled ones first and labeled by date, the body is truncated to a preview, and an authenticated Cotlet API key with app access is required. That is genuine added value.

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 ordering fact ("scheduled ones first") is stated twice in consecutive sentences, and the first sentence largely restates the second. It is front-loaded and readable, but the redundancy costs it structure points.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does: ordering, preview-vs-full-body behavior, and the fields surfaced. Pagination via cursor is left to the schema, and auth requirements are noted, so an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents limit, cursor and status (including the enum and defaults). The description mentions status/date fields but adds no syntax or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 ("Lists your posts") plus the ordering scope (scheduled posts first) and the fields returned (status, audience, publish date). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling patreon_get_post by noting the body is only a preview. The opening sentence is awkward but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 note "Body is a short preview; get_post returns the full text" gives implicit routing to a sibling, which is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this list tool (e.g., to review, manage, or check status of posts) versus other patreon operations, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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