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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Text only — it never posts or sends; publishing stays a separate, approval-gated step.' This clarifies that the tool has no external side effects, which is valuable for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clarifying note about non-publishing. It is concise, with no fluff or redundant information, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool has 20 parameters, all covered by schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context. It does not explain return format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema. The description adequately conveys the tool's role and boundary (drafting, not publishing). Minor gap: it does not mention any prerequisites or constraints like requiring research input, but the schema covers that.

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 every parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed that by explaining parameter interactions or additional meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: turning a topic and research into social post drafts for specific platforms. It explicitly lists the platforms (LinkedIn, X, Instagram, Facebook, general) and distinguishes it from publishing, which is a separate step. It is easily differentiated from sibling tools, which are all finance/invoice related.

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 when to use the tool: when you need drafts, not actual publishing, by stating 'publishing stays a separate, approval-gated step.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes it clear this is the social-content drafting tool. A clear usage condition is present, though not exhaustive.

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