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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds that the listed posts won't be published until approved, which is useful context about the data, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or scope (e.g., all users/workspaces).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filter. No redundant information; every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list with no parameters and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and the state of the items. No output schema is needed to convey the return type, as the resource and filter are explicit.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is effectively complete at 100% coverage. With no parameters to describe, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description correctly adds no parameter information.

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 + resource ('List all scheduled posts') with a clear filter ('pending approval'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_scheduled_posts. The second sentence adds context about why these posts are pending.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to see posts awaiting approval) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. No comparison to get_scheduled_posts or approve_post is given, so guidance is only implicit.

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