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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining that these posts 'failed all retry attempts' and were moved to the dead letter queue, which clarifies the state of the data. No side effects are disclosed because none exist for a read operation.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List posts...'), and each sentence adds value. The first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema/annotation details.

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?

This is a simple list operation with no output schema and 3 well-documented parameters. The description provides essential domain context (dead-letter queue, retry failures) and hints at the follow-up actions. It is sufficiently complete given the schema and annotations, though it could mention the returned data shape if that were important.

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%: all three parameters (limit, status, team_id) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so it earns the baseline score of 3 for a schema that already documents parameters fully.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('posts... moved to the dead letter queue') and defines the domain concept. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'requeue_dead_letter' by focusing on listing vs. acting. The two-sentence description fully conveys the tool's function.

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 provides clear context: this is for reviewing dead-letter posts before deciding to requeue or discard. It implies a workflow ('Review and decide to requeue or discard them') without explicitly naming alternative tools. It could have stated 'use this instead of requeue_dead_letter for inspection,' but the intent is clear.

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