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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the crucial caveat that 'a scheduled receipt is not proof of publication', plus permission/provider-access constraints, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not explain the destructive implications of targeting live accounts.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded verb+resource, and the important confirmPublish requirement and receipt caveat are prominent. 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?

With 13 params, 7 required, 0% schema description coverage, nested platform objects, and no human-readable field docs, the description leaves most of the calling contract unstated. The output schema lightens the return-value burden, but the gap on required identifiers and target structure is substantial.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only gestures at copy, privacy/consent, synthetic-media disclosure, time and timezone. It legitimately names timezone, scheduled_for, synthetic media, and privacy concepts, but never mentions required fields like media_asset_id, targets, workspaceId or idempotencyKey by name/semantics, leaving the 0%-covered required params largely unexplained.

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 (schedule) plus resource (selected existing video asset) and enumerates the exact supported destinations. An agent can distinguish this from publishing_instagram_schedule and clip_share_publish from the description alone.

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?

Explicitly says the tool requires confirmPublish=true and that it schedules an already-selected/reviewed asset, implying it is not for generating or approving content. It does not name alternative tools for the single-platform (Instagram) case, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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