list_blog_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses filtering semantics, state values, defaults, and limit constraints, which is useful. However, it does not mention sorting, pagination behavior, or response structure beyond the existence of an output schema, and it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only.

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 a one-line summary followed by a tight Args list with no filler. Every line adds either a format, constraint, default, or cross-reference, and the most important parameter semantics are front-loaded.

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 six optional parameters and no annotation coverage, the description covers every parameter's semantics and defaults, which is essential. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but the description omits ordering and pagination details beyond limit, leaving a small gap for a list tool.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all six parameters with formats, constraints, and defaults. It adds case-insensitivity for name_contains, allowed state values, ISO 639-1 and ISO 8601 formats, and the 1-100 limit range—meaningful detail not present in the bare 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 opening line 'List blog posts' names a specific verb and resource, and the parameter list clarifies that this is a filtered retrieval operation, not a mutation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_blog_post or list_blog_authors, but the plural resource and filter arguments make the intent clear.

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 no explicit 'use when' or 'instead of' guidance, aside from a brief pointer to list_blogs for resolving blog_id. It leaves the choice between this tool and related tools such as get_blog_post or list_blog_authors entirely implicit.

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