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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it posts as a Reel onto the agency's own Instagram 'at its turn', and the caption falls back to a generated default (credited to @shearquery plus the Monday LIVE training). It does not say what happens if the same video is queued twice, which is the one relevant gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the approval gate, then behavior, then the two optional params. Every sentence carries information (eligibility, posting behavior, caption fallback, position default, confirmation step) with 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?

For a 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the approval prerequisite, the posting behavior, and the defaults for both optional params. Only the duplicate/re-queue behavior is left unspecified.

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 only 33% (caption and position have no descriptions), so the description must compensate — and it does: caption is optional with a spelled-out default, and position is optional with '1 = next' and 'default is the end'. This adds real meaning beyond the bare maxLength/minimum constraints in the schema.

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+resource+scope: adding a published ShearQuery video (ref from agency_video_library) to an APPROVED AGENCY's Instagram line, posted as a Reel at its turn. That clearly separates it from update_agency_post (which edits an existing post) and from set_agency_publishing_schedule (which governs timing).

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?

Gives a real prerequisite ('For an APPROVED AGENCY') and a workflow rule ('Confirm the video and caption with the agency first'), so the agent knows the gate and the human-in-the-loop step. It never names an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, which keeps it short of a 5.

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