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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so mutation/safety is partially covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: nothing is published, drafts are queued for human review, and each post consumes the shared AI-generation allowance (quota awareness). It does not state limits on batch size or error behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the review outcome, then the quota caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the non-publishing guarantee, the review surface, and quota cost. The only gap is how the week's goal is supplied or what the agent should do next (e.g., point to get_current_plan/approve_plan_item).

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no schema surface for the description to compensate for; baseline is 4. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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?

Specific verb (plan/write drafts) plus resource (this week's social media posts) and scope (batch across connected platforms, sourced from the Brain and the week's goal). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like compose_post and schedule_post, which act on individual posts.

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 implies usage (generate a batch of reviewable drafts for the week) and states the output destination ('Plan my week'), but never explicitly says when to choose this over compose_post or schedule_post, nor any preconditions such as needing a connected channel or Brain.

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