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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that only published posts are included and that the ordering is by recency, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loads the core operation and resource. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or extraneous detail.

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 simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and a strong set of annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. The agent knows what the tool returns (recent, published posts) and the schema documents the only adjustable input.

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?

The only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the input schema with its default and cap, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb, "List", and a precise resource, "the most recently published posts", which clearly distinguishes it from conceptually different siblings like search_posts, list_topics, and random_post. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast approaches, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 "most recently published" implicitly tells an agent this is the right choice when a user wants newest posts, but the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer alternatives such as search_posts, browse_by_tag, or related_posts. There is no exclusionary language or mention of sibling tools.

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