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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context by specifying that the tool returns profile IDs, platforms, and handles needed for targeting. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the structured metadata.

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 description is two succinct sentences: the first defines the tool's output, and the second gives a clear usage directive. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose, returned content, and usage timing. It could be slightly richer by explicitly stating that it returns a list of all available posting targets, but it is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. There are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the returned data instead.

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 clearly states it lists posting targets, specifically the profile IDs needed to target a post, along with each platform and handle. The title 'List posting targets' aligns with the description and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprkly_list_connected_social_accounts by focusing on post targeting.

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?

The description provides an explicit usage instruction: 'Call this before sprkly_schedule_post.' This gives clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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