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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the hard failure mode ('a call without platform fails'), the cross-status scope (draft/scheduled/published), and that the same data is exposed via the postey://posts/{post_id}/comments/{platform} resource. It stops short of describing result ordering, volume, or pagination behavior, and the output schema carries the return shape.

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?

Front-loads the definition and what it is not, which is the right order. However, the THREADS/TIKTOK/PINTEREST caveat is restated in the description and again in the platform parameter schema, and the resource-equivalence sentence is a trailing footnote rather than core guidance.

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 single-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers identity, scope, prerequisites, failure mode, sibling disambiguation, and a resource alternative. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Adds real meaning beyond the schema: a concrete example (post_id=123, platform='LINKEDIN'), the joint-requirement rule, and the reason all nine platform enum values are accepted here without implying audience-comment support. The rationale duplicates some of the platform field's own schema text, so it is additive but partly redundant.

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 ('internal team/collaboration comments attached to a post for a platform') and immediately bounds it as notes visible only inside Postey, never published. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_platform_comments, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Gives positive triggers ('context before a virality review or when the user asks what the team said'), a negative case ('these are not audience comments'), and an explicit non-fallback rule for THREADS/TIKTOK/PINTEREST where no audience-comment provider exists. Both the when and the when-not are named alongside the alternative tool.

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