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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: fixed page size of 12, what each item carries (captions, media links), and the first-batch special case where the batch is a single draft approved as a whole. That batch-level exception is genuinely non-obvious behavior an agent could not get 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, and neither sentence is padding. The first-batch sentence is dense but every clause carries distinct semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (captions and media links) and how pagination is sized, which is the right burden to carry. The remaining gap is routing: it explains the batch-approval rule without pointing at approve_first_batch or approve_posts.

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 100% and the sole parameter is fully self-describing, so baseline is 3. The description earns the extra point by disclosing the concrete page size of 12, which tells the agent how paging will actually behave rather than just that a page index exists.

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 ('Lists the posts ... that wait for the merchant's approval') and implicitly separates itself from upcoming_posts by contrasting awaiting-approval posts with ones that are 'scheduled'. It never names a sibling outright, so the differentiation has to be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent can infer this is the entry point before approve_posts, approve_first_batch, or reject_post. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no alternative is named even though upcoming_posts and the approval tools sit right beside it.

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