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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real context on top: a single generation covers all platforms, the platform count is capped by the plan, and output requires human review before scheduling. It doesn't mention failure modes or what happens if the article is incomplete, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the transformation, then the generation/plan constraint, then the return-and-review instruction. Every clause carries information; "how many platforms at once follows the plan" is slightly oblique but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is rightly omitted, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool whose whole input is two untyped strings, the description never says where article_id comes from or what platform identifiers are legal, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description has to carry both parameters and it only partially does: it establishes that article_id names a finished article and that platforms is a multi-value list whose size is plan-limited. It gives no format for article_id and no hint that valid platform values come from list_platforms, leaving a real gap.

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 a specific verb and transformation: turn a finished article into one native post per platform, in brand voice, preserving facts. That clearly separates it from write_post (authoring from scratch) and publish_article/schedule_post (downstream actions), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Show them to the person first" gives a useful workflow constraint and "ready to schedule" implies schedule_post is the next step, but the agent is never told when not to use this tool or which alternative to pick if the article isn't finished yet (e.g. article_status, improve_article).

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