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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that it searches owner content and the archived scope, but says nothing about pagination behavior (limit/offset) or result ordering, which would be the useful additions.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then the searchable facets, then the follow-up tool. No filler and nothing 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining shortfall is pagination and includeArchived semantics on a schema with zero parameter descriptions, but the core search behavior is adequately conveyed.

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 the burden. "by words, status, connected channel and update dates" maps to query, status, channelId and from/to, covering the main filters, but limit, offset and includeArchived are left unexplained for an 8-param tool.

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 (find/search) and resource (Postlyra post) and even clarifies the scope: scheduled, published or archived content. It routes to get_post as the follow-up reader. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling search_post_drafts, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

"Use when finding any existing Postlyra post" gives clear context, and "Read the selected post with get_post" names the alternative for retrieval after selection. The one obvious gap is the sibling search_post_drafts, whose relationship is not addressed, so there are no explicit exclusions.

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