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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: a publishing-entitlement requirement (auth), a non-idempotency warning against blind retries after an uncertain result, and the already-published guard. These are precisely the traits an agent needs to avoid duplicate or failed publications.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: action, precondition, entitlement, and failure/retry rule. The core action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant filler.

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 still covers the essentials for a one-parameter, non-idempotent, open-world mutation: entitlement, precondition, duplicate-publication guard, and retry guidance. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful framing that the postId refers to an approved draft whose platform is stored server-side (no destination parameter needed), but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Publish an approved Postel draft immediately to its stored social platform') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like create-post, schedule-post, and update-post by emphasizing immediate, live publication. An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (confirm content and destination, draft must be approved), an exclusion (cannot publish an already published post), and a recovery path naming the sibling get-post ('do not retry after an uncertain result without checking get-post'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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