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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: results come most-recent-first and timestamps are UTC ISO 8601. That is real context beyond structured fields, though pagination defaults and total-count behavior are unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core scope and ordering front-loaded and the timezone caveat second. Every clause carries 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?

The description covers identity, scope, ordering, and time semantics, which is adequate for a read-only list tool with annotations carrying safety. But with six optional parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the absence of any pagination or search guidance leaves a real gap.

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 only 17% — just the platform slug is documented — and the description does not compensate for the other five parameters (page, limit, search, content_type, workspace_uid). It only alludes to workspace scoping in prose; nothing explains filtering or paging semantics an agent would need to call it well.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List posts') and adds scope (a Feedlio workspace), the statuses included, and the sort order, so an agent knows exactly what set it gets back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_media or list_workspaces, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the listed statuses; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_media or when filtering is required. The one real piece of guidance is the presentation instruction to convert timestamps using list_workspaces, which is helpful but limited to output formatting rather than tool selection.

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