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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, and the description goes further by disclosing the default window, the maximum span, the ordering (newest last), and the returned fields including failure reasons. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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?

A single dense sentence plus a short clause; front-loaded with the scope and default. The trailing 'Free. Free.' is duplicated filler that should have been removed, otherwise there is little waste.

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, so describing the returned fields (channel, status, link, failure reason) is exactly what is needed. Combined with the default and maximum window, the agent has what it needs to call and interpret this tool.

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 only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that the time window defaults to a past-and-future range and is capped at 92 days, and it enumerates the status values that map to the status enum. It adds meaning over the bare schema parameters.

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 resource and scope: posts within a time window, with default range and ordering. It clearly implies a read/list operation and is distinguishable from social_post (create) and social_delete_post, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 default window (last 7 days, next 30) and the 92-day cap implicitly tell the agent how to call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus social_post_check, social_find_slot, or social_analytics. Usage must be inferred.

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