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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already signal a safe read-only operation, and the description reinforces this with 'without saving or publishing it.' It adds useful context about the validation purpose, though it does not specify what a successful or failed validation outcome looks like.

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 sentence with no filler. The central action ('validates social post copy'), the qualifier ('for an authorized source review'), and the safety boundary ('without saving or publishing it') are all front-loaded and necessary.

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 non-destructive validation tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is largely sufficient. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'validates' returns (e.g., error list, success flag), though the intent is reasonably inferable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high coverage; the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('validates') with a clear resource ('social post copy') and explicitly states the key boundary: 'without saving or publishing it.' This differentiates it from sibling preview tools and draft mutation tools like draft-review-reply.

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 clearly conveys this is for safe validation of social draft content rather than committing it. It does not, however, explicitly name alternative tools like search-social-drafts or preview-broadcast-campaign or state when those should be preferred.

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