list_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the response composition (text, timestamps, lifecycle, distribution) and suggests a follow-up action, but it doesn't mention pagination, authorization, or side effects. For a read-only list operation, this is moderate but incomplete.

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 concise, purposeful sentences with no fluff. The first defines the output, the second gives a practical next step—every word earns its place.

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 description covers the core purpose and output composition, but it omits details about response shape, pagination behavior, and sorting semantics. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more informative about the return structure and the meaning of lifecycle/distribution.

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 covers count and organization_id with descriptions, but sort_by has no description in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information, so it fails to compensate for the missing sort_by semantics. The description provides little value beyond the structured schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'an organization's posts' and enumerates the included content (text, timestamps, lifecycle, distribution). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_organizations or get_share_statistics.

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 provides a workflow hint—'Take a returned post id and pass it to per-post share statistics for engagement'—which implies when to use this tool (as a precursor to share statistics). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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