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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by noting optional filters and pagination support. It does not contradict the annotations, and mentioning pagination is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the structured annotation data.

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 single, compact sentence with the core capability front-loaded. Every phrase adds useful information—filters, pagination—and there is 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?

For a read-only listing tool with no required parameters and an output schema present, the description plus annotations and input schema provide a complete enough picture. Minor details like default ordering or pagination limits are already covered by the schema, so the description does not need to restate them.

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 the schema already documents all seven parameters including limit, offset, statuses, platforms, dates, and sortOrder. The description's mention of 'status, platform, or date range' maps to those parameters but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('posts'), and names the optional filtering dimensions (status, platform, date range) plus pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create_post, update_post, and delete_post, and from get_post, which targets a single post.

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 conveys that the tool is for listing posts with filtering and pagination, so usage context is implied. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_post_results or get_post, and it offers no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives.

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