list_blog_posts

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is a search over public content, returns specific fields, and prescribes how results should be linked inline. This is more than the annotations alone provide, though it does not cover edge cases like empty results or error behavior.

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 compact and well organized: purpose first, usage constraint second, return format and link handling last. Every sentence adds useful information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple, optional-parameter read tool with a rich schema, output schema, and full annotations. The description covers when to use it, what it returns, and how to format links, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with types and descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the general search framing, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 states a specific action and resource: searching the public Crew Blog at /blog for advisor-authored posts. It clearly identifies what the tool returns and the /blog/<slug> link format, making its purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from the many list/show siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only when the user explicitly asks about the blog or what an advisor has written. It also provides a clear when-not-to-use instruction: don't volunteer posts in normal conversation. No sibling tool covers this same domain, so naming an alternative is unnecessary.

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