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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the post is sent to all networks at once, scheduling happens automatically when a date is present, and the PUBLISHING state means in-flight (verify with get_post). It does not say whether the action is reversible or that a cancelled/retry path exists, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 action and with every clause carrying information (scope, source, condition, verification). The parenthetical source list is slightly dense 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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers what happens on success, the scheduled-vs-immediate branch, and how to verify the outcome. Missing pieces are minor: failure modes, and whether a mistakenly published post can be undone.

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% for the single post_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only that the referenced post must be a saved, not-yet-published one and comes from create_post or PilotControl, which is marginal over the schema 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 ('Envía a publicar una publicación guardada que todavía no salió') plus scope ('en todas sus redes a la vez') and the accepted sources ('de create_post o de PilotControl'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling publish_now, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

Gives an explicit constraint ('Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pidió') and a conditional path ('o la programa si tiene fecha'), plus a verification routine (confirm status with get_post). It stops short of naming alternatives such as publish_now, create_and_publish_post, or reschedule_post when the agent should route elsewhere.

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