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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the filter options (accountId, socialSetId, status) but these are also present in the schema. It does not disclose pagination behavior or response format beyond what the cursor schema description provides. Overall, it adds little beyond annotations and schema.

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 a single, concise sentence that states the core action first and then lists filters. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It earns a perfect score for efficiency.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description could mention that it returns a paginated list and how to use the cursor. However, the cursor schema description already covers pagination mechanics. It does not mention default limit or sorting, but for a simple read operation with strong schema coverage, this is acceptable though not rich.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the three filter parameters (accountId, socialSetId, status) but this is already covered in the schema. It adds no new meaning for limit or cursor, and the 'old/new' nuance for accountId/socialSetId is also in the schema. Thus it does not compensate beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states it lists the user's posts, a specific resource and action. It distinguishes from other list tools by naming 'posts' as the resource, and it mentions filter options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from xplanner_get_post (single post retrieval) or other list tools, so it's clear but not maximally distinct.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives like xplanner_get_post or other list tools. An agent would have to infer usage from context.

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