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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation and safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: only posts in draft or scheduled state are eligible, which constrains invocation. It does not state whether publishing is reversible or what happens to the scheduled time, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the eligibility rule front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool routing. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter action tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, eligibility and routing adequately. It omits any indication of what publishing returns or whether the action is queued versus immediate beyond the word 'immediately', a minor gap given no output schema exists.

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?

There is a single required 'id' parameter whose schema description ('The post ID to publish') already covers it at 100% coverage. The description adds no format, source, or retrieval guidance for the ID beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (publish) plus the resource (post) and an explicit precondition (draft or scheduled, published immediately). It also names the sibling retry_post and the state condition that selects it, so an agent can distinguish it from neighboring post tools without opening any schema.

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 both when-to-use (draft or scheduled posts) and when-not-to-use with a named alternative ('for a failed or partially failed (warning) post use retry_post instead'), including why that alternative exists. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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