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

Annotations only cover the generic write/safety profile, so the description carries the real behavioral load and does: cascade timing math with a worked example, draft fallback when scheduling is omitted, hard 30-story cap, and an explicit refusal policy for unsupported networks. These are the traits an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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-loaded with the core behavior and the scheduling example, and every English sentence earns its place. The trailing French translation is a verbatim duplicate that adds length without new information, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description should still frame the result and it does (scheduled stories vs. drafts, refusal semantics, cap). It stops short of saying what identifiers or payload a successful call returns, but for a six-parameter creation tool the behavioral coverage is close to sufficient.

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 coverage is already 83%, yet the description still adds meaning: it explains that `media_uuids` is ordered and one story is produced per media, and that `scheduled_at`/`interval_minutes` operate as a cascade from a first timestamp. It does not restate the caption cardinality or the interval default in the English text.

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 ('Create a SERIES of stories, one per media, in the order given') and immediately distinguishes it from a feed-post sibling by asserting that unsupported networks are 'refused rather than turned into a disguised feed post'. An agent can tell this apart from create_draft_post 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?

Explicit conditions are given: with `scheduled_at` + `interval_minutes` you get cascaded scheduling, without it you get drafts, capped at thirty stories per call. It also enumerates the accepted networks. It never names an alternative tool for the refusal case, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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