List posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest-first, and cursor values are consumed from a previous page to fetch subsequent pages. It does not mention rate limits or result shape, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: scope + sort order, filter values, brand scoping, and pagination. The most important facts are front-loaded and there is no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

For a read-only list tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies sorting, the full status vocabulary, brand scoping, and pagination mechanics. The remaining omission (pagination termination / whether a next cursor is returned) is minor, and the annotation set already covers the safety dimension.

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 only 50% and status has no enum in the schema, yet the description enumerates all seven valid status values, effectively documenting that parameter. It also explains cursor pagination and the all-brands condition for productId, compensating for the undocumented cursor. Only 'limit' is left entirely to the schema, which already states default 25 / max 100.

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 ('List posts') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), so an agent can immediately distinguish it from get_post. It does not name any sibling as an alternative, but the list/get distinction is self-evident from the name and description.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for productId ('On an all-brands connection, pass productId to list one brand') and explains that cursor continues paging, which is real when-to-use information. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as list_media or get_post, so usage remains implied at the tool level.

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