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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-derivable context: the plan entitlement gate and the idempotence-like precondition that published posts cannot be published again. It stops short of saying what happens on partial failure or platform-side rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the entitlement constraint, then the precondition. No filler, no restating the tool name.

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 destructive mutation with annotations covering safety, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the plan requirement and the cannot-republish rule. With no output schema it need not describe returns, though success/failure semantics are left implicit.

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 is a single parameter (postId) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or origin (e.g. from list-posts/get-post), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb (publish), resource (a Postel draft), and scope (immediately, to the platform stored on the post). The word 'immediately' cleanly separates it from schedule-post, and the draft framing separates it from create-post and update-post without needing to name them.

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 real preconditions: a plan that includes publishing is required, and an already-published post cannot be re-published. It does not explicitly name schedule-post as the alternative for deferred publishing, which is the obvious sibling an agent might confuse this with.

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