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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 'without duplication' deduplication behavior and the 'Retained paging requires unchanged filters, limit and List revision' caveat, which are not captured by annotations. This goes beyond the baseline and helps the agent understand paging constraints.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a critical paging constraint. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a rich schema.

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?

This is a complex tool with 19 parameters, many documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description provides the core purpose and a paging caveat, but it does not explain the different retention modes (explore vs exhaustive), the time window limits, or the meaning of 'compact' in context. However, since the schema carries detailed parameter semantics, the description's role is to guide high-level usage. It covers the essential differentiator but leaves the agent to infer deeper behavior from the schema, making it adequate but not 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 58%, so the schema carries much of the parameter documentation. The description does not explicitly explain any parameters; it only mentions 'compact' which maps to the detail parameter. Given the moderate coverage, the description does not need to compensate heavily, and the schema already describes modes like 'explore' vs 'exhaustive', filters, and projection. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('search') and resource ('compact post activity in your List'), and adds a distinguishing feature ('matching its author OR asset members without duplication'). This clearly separates it from generic search tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative. The mention of 'compact' hints at a mode but relies on the schema for full meaning.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_posts or get_posts. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context where another tool would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is that it operates on a List, but this is not elaborated.

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