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

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond them: unlisted queued posts keep their relative order and follow the listed ones, and pending-approval posts can be included with deferred effect. That is real behavior disclosure the annotations can't express. It doesn't cover error behavior for invalid IDs or whether this affects already-publishing items, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the ordering rule, then the pending-approval caveat, then the discovery call. No filler and no restatement of the name or 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 single-parameter reorder tool with a fully documented schema and clear annotations, the definition covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly, including how to discover input. The only gap is failure handling (invalid or non-queued post IDs), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the param is already documented as "first = next," so the baseline is at least 3. The description goes further by defining the positional contract relative to unlisted posts and approved-vs-pending posts, which is meaning the schema does not carry.

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?

"Set the order queued posts publish in" gives a specific verb (set/reorder) plus the exact resource and scope (the queued posts' publish order). An agent can distinguish it immediately from siblings like queue_post, get_queue_status, or update_queue_settings without opening any 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?

It gives an explicit discovery path: "Call list_posts with status \"queued\" to see the queue," which tells the agent how to obtain valid input before invoking. It doesn't state exclusions (e.g., how this differs from update_queue_settings, or what to do with already-scheduled posts), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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