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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it adds meaningful behavioral context: "no credit cost", newest-first ordering, and the shape of what comes back (status, per-status topic counts, credit-reservation info, dashboard link). It does not cover pagination behavior for the limit cap, which is a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then usage. The return-value enumeration is slightly dense but each element is informative, so it stays efficient.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, ordering, filter options, cost profile, and usage intent. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It documents the status filter and enumerates the allowed values (though these duplicate the enum), but the limit parameter and its default/max bounds are never mentioned. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the team's blog plans") and clarifies the product surface with the alias "Post Planner". It is easily distinguished from siblings like create_blog_plan and get_plan, and states ordering ("newest first").

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: check existing plans before creating a new one, or to monitor generation progress. It does not explicitly name the alternative get_plan for single-plan lookups, so the routing is clear but not fully comparative.

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