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

Annotations only supply the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds substantial behavior on top: the exact state transition to pending_approval, that it never auto-publishes, the owner email side effect, the returned approval id, the approve/reject lifecycle (approved → scheduled, past-time → out in ~2 minutes; rejected → draft with notes), and the Power-plan restriction with upgrade_required.

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?

The core action and resulting state are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by side effects, the sibling tool for polling, lifecycle outcomes, the alternative for new posts, and the plan gate. Every clause carries distinct, actionable information with no 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by explaining what is returned (an approval id to poll) and the terminal states after approval or rejection. Combined with the plan gating and the new-post alternative, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (post_id, note) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that post_id must be an existing draft or scheduled post and that note appears in the approval email, but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('Hold a draft or scheduled post for the owner's approval') and spells out the resulting state ('moves it to pending_approval'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming sprkly_schedule_post (for new posts) and sprkly_get_post_approval_status (for polling), so 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('hold a draft or scheduled post'), when-not and the alternative ('To hold a NEW post, pass requires_approval to sprkly_schedule_post instead'), plus the plan gate that blocks other plans. The repeated-call case is also addressed ('Asking again for a post that is already waiting returns the same request').

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