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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds ordering, content origins (API/dashboard vs workflow), and the read-only nature of workflow posts, which is useful context beyond the annotations. It omits pagination and filtering behavior, so it is not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. The colon and parenthetical structure efficiently convey scope, ordering, and origin exceptions.

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?

The output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety, but the description leaves key invocation behavior undocumented: pagination via after/limit and filtering via external_user_id. It provides adequate high-level scope but is incomplete for correct parameter usage.

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%, and the description does not mention after, limit, or external_user_id at all. It adds no meaning, format, default, or constraint for any of the three parameters, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Lists'), resource ('posts'), scope ('authenticated profile's posts'), ordering ('newest first'), and included origins. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_drafts or get_post, so it falls 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named. The usage is only implied by the verb, leaving the agent to infer that get_post is for a single post and list_drafts is for drafts.

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