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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: result ordering (feed Newest sort), that body is only a short preview, and that the user's Cotlet API key with app access is required.

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?

Front-loaded and generally efficient, but it wastes space repeating itself: 'newest first, with author...' is immediately restated as 'newest first, the same order as the feed with the Newest sort.' The redundancy costs it a point.

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 return-value burden and does describe the returned fields plus the preview limitation, and it flags the auth requirement. Only minor details like pagination via the cursor are left unaddressed, which the schema covers adequately.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters; the description only restates the category and creation-time filters. No syntax or format detail is added beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 ('Lists posts in the community feed') plus scope details (newest first, author/category/likes/comment count). It also names the sibling get_post and distinguishes what this tool returns versus that one, so an agent can tell them apart without opening a schema.

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 clear context for use: filter by category or creation time 'to see what came in since your last check', and routes to get_post for full text. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use/exclusion rules, but the get_post pointer supplies a strong alternative signal.

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