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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no result limits, no scoping rules (e.g., whether results are limited to a site or project).

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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 five-parameter, zero-coverage list tool with no output schema, the description omits the required scope parameters, result shape, ordering, and pagination. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at the required IDs and what comes back.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names campaign, status, and platform loosely, but never mentions the two required parameters (projectId, siteId), never explains the ten allowed status enum values, and adds no format or semantics beyond the property names.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (social posts / distribution posts) plus the dimensions available for filtering. An agent can distinguish it from list_distribution_campaigns and list_distribution_pages by resource, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 mention of campaign/status/platform filters implies a retrieval use case, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over list_distribution_pages, list_distribution_campaigns, or get_distribution_status, and no statement of required scope or prerequisites.

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