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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result is platform-specific and includes options like post types, character limits, and media requirements, which helps the agent know what kind of information to expect without claiming any side effects.

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 tightly written sentences. The first states the core function and examples; the second gives the practical use case. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one fully documented parameter. The description explains what the tool returns at a category level (post types, character limits, media requirements) and when to call it. Although there is no output schema, the examples provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the response.

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 only parameter, channelId, is already fully described in the input schema as 'The channel ID to get options for.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description adds no further parameter semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get platform-specific options for a channel,' and then clarifies with concrete examples (post types, character limits, media requirements). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_channel_health or get_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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you need a platform's valid post types before creating a post for it.' This gives clear context for selection, though it does not enumerate exclusions or comparisons to alternative tools.

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