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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are restricted to published posts (drafts excluded) and are returned newest-first, which an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and ordering, and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool the description is adequate, but there is no output schema, so the return shape (which post fields come back, whether category filtering is exact-match) is undocumented anywhere. That is a modest but real gap rather than a fatal one.

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%, with both limit (range, default 20) and category documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about either parameter — it never mentions paging limits or category filtering — but does not need to.

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 (List) and resource (published mentor.energy blog posts) with a qualifier for content type and explicit sort order (newest first). It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_blog_post or search, so differentiation from siblings is left to inference.

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 description implies browsing published posts but gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_blog_post for a single post or search for queries, and no prerequisites. The 'published' qualifier hints at a scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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