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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value on top by enumerating the returned fields (title, excerpt, author, published date, reading time, categories, URL) — essential here because there is no output schema — and by scoping results to published posts, implying drafts are excluded.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the return shape following. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the enumerated return fields make the tool callable and its results interpretable, and the 'recent published' scope answers the draft question. Minor gap: 'recent' is never defined (no date parameter exists), so the implicit ordering/window is left to be discovered.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit with default 10/max 50, category with case-insensitive substring matching) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond implying recency ordering; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (list published blog posts) plus the platform (Wix Blog) and the exact fields returned, so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, but no sibling is close enough to be confused with it.

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?

'Recent published' implies the context of use and quietly excludes drafts/scheduled posts, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note on what to do when the site has no blog, and no named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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