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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the return shape (edges[].node with title, shortContent, space, owner, plus pageInfo and totalCount) and noting that orderBy is passed through as a plain string, which is a real behavioral quirk. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but it adds meaningful context beyond the annotation.

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 dense sentences with no filler; the core purpose and pagination are front-loaded before the optional parameters and return shape. The parenthetical about orderBy is slightly awkward but earns its place by flagging pass-through behavior.

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 results and does so (edges[].node fields, pageInfo, totalCount). Pagination via limit/offset is acknowledged. Only the lack of any sibling-routing guidance keeps it short of complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description echoes spaceIds/orderBy/reverse and adds the useful note that orderBy is a plain pass-through string, but contributes little beyond 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List posts across the community') and adds scope details (pagination, optional space scoping) plus the underlying GraphQL query name. It does not explicitly name siblings like bettermode_get_post or bettermode_search, so the agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it, keeping this below a 5.

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?

The description implies usage through 'optionally scope to one or more spaces' and the ordering parameters, but never states when to choose this over bettermode_search or bettermode_get_post. There are no exclusions and no stated prerequisites, so guidance is only implied.

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