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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: missing readings stay missing, results are classified as ok/empty/unsupported/failed, and the metrics:read scope is required. That partial-failure semantics disclosure is genuinely useful for an agent.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and constraint, no filler. Slightly terse on the auth requirement placement, but every sentence carries information.

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 does the work of explaining the result shape (status categories, absent readings) and the permission prerequisite. Only pagination/ordering behavior for the limit parameter is left implicit.

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 coverage is 50%: limit is documented in the schema, channelId is not. The description partially compensates by explaining channelId narrows results, but adds nothing about limit beyond the schema's per-channel semantics. Baseline 3 fits.

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 and resource: reads published posts plus network-reported metrics, scoped to channels the credential can reach. Clear enough to separate from list_posts/get_post, though it never names which sibling to prefer.

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?

'Optional channelId narrows the result' implies when to pass a filter, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus post_results, get_post, or list_posts. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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