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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the critical consequence the annotations omit: the content becomes immediately publicly visible and therefore requires confirmation. It also fixes the post language to 'de', a behavioral constraint not expressible in the schema. It doesn't cover failure modes or whether the post can later be modified.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the safety warning sits right after the one-line purpose, then per-parameter rules in telegraphic form. Every line carries information, though the compressed bullet style makes it slightly harder to parse than a fully structured format would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the mutation's public-exposure risk plus conditional field rules are covered. Remaining holes are the meaning of the required 'summary' field and what happens to the post afterwards (edit/delete via gbp_delete_post), which an agent would still have to infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage this description carries the full burden and mostly does: it defines topic_type values, the conditional EVENT/OFFER requirements (event_title, event_start, event_end with 'YYYY-MM-DD'), the OFFER limitation, cta_type values plus the cta_url requirement except for CALL, media_url, and workspace slug semantics. The one required parameter, 'summary' (the post body), is never explained, which is a notable gap for the only mandatory field.

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 ('Neuen Local Post veröffentlichen') and immediately scopes the variants (STANDARD/EVENT/OFFER) and the platform (Business-Profil). The name-plus-description combination makes it clearly distinct from gbp_list_posts, gbp_delete_post and from the WordPress sibling wp_create_post.

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 a real gating rule: it publishes immediately visible public content, so it should only run after explicit confirmation – a genuine usage condition an agent can act on. It doesn't name an alternative tool or when-not-to-use in terms of siblings (e.g. that OFFER fields for coupons don't exist), so it stops short of explicit routing.

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