Blog index

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

Annotations already cover safety: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'published' status constraint and the topic focus, which is useful context, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or filter-combination semantics beyond what the schema already implies.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the filter capability is stated in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the rich annotations, complete parameter schema, and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It identifies the content domain, the published-only scope, and the available filters; nothing critical is missing for a caller to invoke this tool correctly.

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 fully documents the four parameters. The description mirrors the tag and author filters but adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, defaults, or behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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'), a clear resource ('published blog posts'), and a topical scope ('home remodeling, renovation costs, and construction tips'). It also names the two filtering dimensions, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_blog_post or search_content.

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 action is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_blog_post for a single post or search_content for full-text search. The intended use is implied rather than stated with exclusions or alternatives.

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