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

With annotations setting readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is partially covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious transparency: a dry-run preview mode by default and the irreversible fact that posts are public the moment created. It doesn't write anything about rate limits or edit/delete semantics.

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 dense sentence with the side-effect warning front-loaded ('Preview unless confirm is true; posts are public the moment they are created'). Zero filler; every clause carries information.

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 no-output-schema, 6-param write tool with 83% schema coverage, the description covers the two highest-impact behaviors: the preview/confirm gate and public visibility. It omits what happens on failure or how to later edit/retrieve the post, which could matter for a publish tool, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.

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 83% (confirm, cta_url, summary, photo_url, gbp_location_id all documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the co-occurrence rule implied by 'optional call-to-action button and photo' and restates the preview semantics of confirm; it does not add meaning for cta_type or the summary limits.

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 (Publish) and resource (post/update on a Business Profile location), and enumerates the payload (text, CTA button, photo). Clearly distinguishable from sibling gbp_posts (list) and wp_write_post (different platform), so an agent can route correctly.

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 embeds usage guidance inside the confirmation flow ('Preview unless confirm is true'), which implies when to set confirm=true, but it never explicitly names an alternative for viewing existing posts (gbp_posts) or states 'when-not-to-use.' Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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