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

Annotations already provide strong safety signals: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal context about behavior beyond that, such as 'Returns matching channels and workspace context' and the pre-creation use case. It does not add details like pagination or result limits, but with annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is adequate though not particularly rich.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. No redundant words, and it earns its place with specific detail on resolution dimensions and output. Excellent structure and length for the complexity of the tool.

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?

The tool has 5 optional parameters, no required args, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present). The description provides a high-level summary of the output ('matching channels and workspace context') and the usage context. It does not explain default behavior with no filters (e.g., does it return all targets?), but given the output schema and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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 high (80%) since 4 of 5 parameters have descriptions. The description reinforces the parameter purposes by mentioning 'by platform, organization, workspace, or name', aligning with the query, platform, workspace_id, and organization_id fields. The 'limit' parameter lacks a description in the schema and the description does not compensate, but the name is self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds modest value beyond the 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 description clearly states the tool 'Resolves publishing targets by platform, organization, workspace, or name' with a specific verb and resource. It also positions the tool relative to the post lifecycle ('before a post is created or scheduled') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_post or list_social_accounts by focusing on resolution of targets rather than creation or general listing.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'before a post is created or scheduled' and what it does (resolves targets). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the pre-publication target resolver, distinct from general list or creation tools.

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