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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral context: suggestion is for the agent to follow, bio_link limitation, can_publish_posts default and optional nature, monthly DM cap semantics with not_sent/plan_limit implications, and publish limit counting. These details are not in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the resource statement and usage instruction, and uses terse field annotations. It is longer than typical, but each paragraph addresses a specific field or behavior. Some output-field explanation could be trimmed given the output schema exists, keeping it from 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover read-only safety. The description still supplies all context an agent needs: when to call, how to read the suggestion, and how to interpret plan limits and publishing flags. Nothing material 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists; its field-level explanations pertain to the output schema rather than input parameters.

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 the resource (the user's Saypage account) and enumerates its contents: plan and usage, site address, Instagram accounts. It distinguishes this account-level tool from onboarding by specifying onboarding is for first-time use. An agent can identify the tool's scope without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to call this at the start of a conversation, and directs to onboarding instead the first time the user uses Saypage. This gives a clear when-to-use and an alternative for the excluded case. No further exclusions are needed for a no-param account getter.

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