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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds context that the data is scoped to the authenticated user’s posts, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or how the status values map to returned data. This adds some value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 with no filler, and it front-loads the core purpose. It is efficiently written, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.

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 seven optional filter parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of response structure or pagination, the single-sentence description is not enough for an agent to use filters with confidence. Annotations cover safety but not the operational details needed for correct invocation.

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 provides no explanation of any of the seven parameters. The agent is left without guidance on what sort values mean, how cursor pagination works, how dateFrom/dateTo interact, or what status/platform filters do. The description completely fails to compensate for the empty parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('authenticated user’s scheduled, draft, publishing, or published posts'), so the basic purpose is evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling get_posts_with_analytics, which also appears to list posts, so some sibling differentiation is missing.

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 guidance about when to use list_posts versus alternatives such as get_posts_with_analytics or get_post_analytics. The description does not mention filtering, pagination, or any context in which this tool should be preferred. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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