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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read operation, but it says nothing about authentication, pagination, result limits, or ordering. For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The primary action and its optional filters are stated immediately.

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 two-parameter list tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it identifies the resource and both filters. It omits pagination behavior and does not compensate for the absence of an output schema, leaving some operational details unstated.

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 0%, but the schema itself provides enums for both parameters, and the description adds that status and platform are optional filters. That confirms their role beyond the raw schema, though it offers no additional syntax or default behavior. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the enums do much of the documentation work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List posts") and scopes it to "this account," which clearly separates it from get_post, create_post, and update_post. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the list operation is unambiguous against the surrounding tools.

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 states that filtering by status or platform is optional, which implies straightforward usage. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_post or get_post_stats, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied but not elaborated.

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