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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context — default scope (50 most recent), ordering when a range is given, and the media/ownMedia resolution rule for targets. It also declares a scope limit (no per-network results/errors) that saves a wasted call, though it doesn't discuss pagination beyond the limit parameter.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then how to parameterize it, then the workflow and exclusion notes. Every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title 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 description carries the burden of describing returns and does so — status, date, targets, media resolution — plus what it does not return and which sibling to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning: `from`/`to` together produce a date-sorted range, `status` is a filter, and omitting all parameters yields the 50 most recent rather than an empty result. That default-behavior explanation is the main thing the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 (lists posts) and immediately defines the returned shape — status, date, targets, with the `media`/`ownMedia` resolution rule spelled out. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two siblings (get_post, schedule_post), so an agent can pick it without reading the schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation patterns: `from`+`to` for a date range sorted by date, `status` to filter, nothing for the 50 most recent. It also names a workflow prerequisite (read before schedule_post to avoid duplicates and slots too close together) and routes to get_post when per-network results are needed.

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