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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the authenticated-user scope and a partial list of statuses, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default sort, or rate limits. It also silently omits FAILED and PARTIALLY_PUBLISHED enum values, which could mislead an agent into thinking those statuses are not listable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the operation and primary scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is too sparse for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases. It lacks guidance on filtering by date/platform, cursor pagination, sorting, and the full status list. The read-only annotations reduce safety concerns but do not fill these functional gaps.

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 compensate for the seven parameters. It only touches the status concept by naming four of the six enum values, and provides no meaning for sort, limit, cursor, dateFrom, dateTo, or platform. This is a significant gap for parameters that have no descriptions in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('posts') scoped to the authenticated user, making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_post and delete_post, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_posts_with_analytics. It also omits two statuses present in the schema (PARTIALLY_PUBLISHED, FAILED), slightly muddying the exact scope.

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?

No usage guidance is provided beyond the basic listing intent. There is no mention of when to choose this tool over get_posts_with_analytics, reschedule_post, or other siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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