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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: validation is performed against 'current' destination rules, implying results are time-sensitive and depend on live external state, which the annotations alone do not convey.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and ends with the exclusion constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations covering safety semantics, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does. The one gap is that it never references the postId input, but for a single obvious parameter the impact is minor.

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 one parameter (postId) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema's type/format/pattern tells the agent it is a UUID, so the meaning is inferable from the name, but the description adds nothing beyond 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a saved draft') plus the rule set being validated against ('current destination rules'), which clearly distinguishes it from schedule_post and update_draft. It does not name a sibling tool explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 clause 'without scheduling or publishing' implicitly steers the agent away from schedule_post, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the negative scope statement rather than stated directly.

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