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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: it specifies the REST endpoint (GET /posts), the filtering mechanism (via 'params'), and the return envelope ({ data:[...], pagination }). No contradictions with annotations were found.

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 four short, information-dense clauses with no redundant language. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every sentence adds distinct value (purpose, endpoint, filter, return format).

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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the resource, the HTTP method, the filtering option, and the return shape. It could explicitly mention pagination behavior, but the return envelope already signals pagination support.

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 (limit, offset, params) are already well-documented structurally. The description adds only a brief 'Filter via params' note, which aligns with the schema but does not meaningfully enhance understanding beyond what is already present.

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 explicitly states 'List posts' and clarifies that posts are 'campaign/profile updates', distinguishing it from sibling list_* tools for other resources. It also names the exact API endpoint (GET /posts), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is used for listing posts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_profiles or list_campaign_donations. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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