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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying scope: it validates without scheduling or publishing, and notes it checks against 'current destination rules'—useful context beyond schema.

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 clear sentence with no filler; the core action and scoping constraints are front-loaded.

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 a single parameter tool with full annotations and an output schema (so return values needn't be described), the description covers the essential behavior. The 0% parameter coverage remains a gap, but the tool's simplicity and annotation richness limit its impact.

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 0% for the single 'postId' parameter—no description in the schema, yet the tool description also does not mention or explain this parameter. For a required UUID parameter, neither the schema nor the description explains its 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 states a specific verb (validate/check), a resource (saved draft against destination rules), and explicitly enumerates what the tool does NOT do (no scheduling, no publishing), distinguishing it from siblings like schedule_post and cancel_post.

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?

It implies pre-publication validation usage but doesn't give explicit when-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., a hypothetical validate vs publish choice). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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