List what this brand has published

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the interpretation burden and delivers richly: the captured-vs-backfilled provenance distinction and what each implies about hook reliability, the 'dash means no number — NOT zero engagement' missing-data semantics, and the 0-credit cost note. These materially change how an agent should interpret rows.

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 core function and return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, with provenance and dash semantics following in decreasing order of importance. There is slight redundancy between 'every post Hermoso has recorded publishing for this brand' and 'the brand's own publishing history,' but each sentence otherwise carries distinct, necessary 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 carries the full burden of explaining results and does so well: field list, provenance marker, dash semantics, and cost are all covered. The one blemish is calling it 'all nine channels' while the channel schema enumerates ten values — a small inconsistency an agent could trip on.

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%: the schema already documents limit (max posts, default 50, max 200, newest first) and channel (full enumeration of ten values). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it correctly sits at the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource — listing every post Hermoso has recorded publishing for this brand — and enumerates the exact return fields (channel, permalink, caption, format, HOOK, SUBJECT, engagement). The 'brand's own publishing history' framing clearly distinguishes it from platform-fetch tools like list_meta_posts and from upcoming-post tools like list_scheduled.

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 gives a clear context for use: it is the brand's memory that makes 'which hook worked?' answerable, telling an agent when this tool is the right call. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, despite close siblings like list_meta_posts, list_scheduled, and backfill_posts that would benefit from routing guidance.

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