List what this brand has published

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description consistently states 'Read-only, 0 credits,' so there is no contradiction. Beyond annotations, it discloses important data semantics: the 'captured' vs 'backfilled' distinction explains how the hook was derived, and the dash-for-engagement caveat ('that is NOT zero engagement') prevents misinterpretation. This is valuable behavioral context that the schema and annotations do not provide.

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 rich but not bloated. It front-loads the core listing purpose, then adds the provenance and dash annotations, and ends with a concise read-only flag. Every sentence earns its place, though the first sentence is slightly long with the full field enumeration. It is well-structured and readable rather than a wall of text.

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?

The tool is complex due to cross-channel scope and data provenance, but the description covers the essential interpretive points: what fields are returned, the captured/backfilled distinction, and the dash-not-zero rule. It does not mention pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter) or what happens when no posts exist, but those are minor. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field list. Overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%: both 'limit' and 'channel' are fully documented with defaults, max values, and the list of channel options. The description adds only a mild reinforcement ('across all nine channels') but does not explain parameter formatting or edge cases beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the full burden, a 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every post Hermoso has recorded publishing for this brand.' It enumerates the exact fields returned (channel, permalink, caption, format, hook, subject, engagement) and states it is the brand's history 'across all nine channels in one place,' which distinguishes it from channel-specific siblings like list_meta_posts or list_threads_posts. This makes the tool's role unambiguous.

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 a primary use case (

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