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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no pagination behavior (pageSize defaults to 24, page to 1), no result-set limits, no auth requirements. With 22 parameters and a read-only annotation, more disclosure was warranted.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than true conciseness given the tool's parameter surface.

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 22-parameter, required-projectId/siteId list tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, one sentence cannot give an agent enough to call it correctly. Filtering semantics, defaults, and result shape are left entirely to inference.

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% across 22 parameters, so the description carries full burden and does not meet it. The only faint mappings are 'matched a keyword' (keywordId) and 'brand mentions that are not leads' (the purpose enum), but page, sort, orders, dateFrom/dateTo, sources, platform, sentiment, score/upvotes/comments bounds and favorites are entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb and resource ('List collected posts that matched a keyword') and adds a scoping qualifier ('including brand mentions that are not leads') that helps separate it from list_leads. It never names a sibling tool outright, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'brand mentions that are not leads' implies when this tool is appropriate versus a leads-oriented sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the content scope.

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