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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds non-obvious behavior on top: absent status/scheduledTime/mediaUrls fields, backend platform-specific length validation, silent skipping of unsupported targets, firstComment null-clears-on-update semantics, and the exact retry contract (identical body and idempotencyKey) on a lost response. This is substantial value beyond the annotation set.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the sibling exclusion, then ordered workflow steps. Every sentence carries information, though the single dense paragraph stacks several distinct concerns (draft shape, media, scheduling, verification, retry) without visual separation.

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 nested, 3-required-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the entire lifecycle: draft creation scope, channel key sourcing, media reservation, scheduling handoff, and post-creation verification. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and recover from failure 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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by explaining the two most error-prone parameters: draft.platforms must be exact channel keys (empty list = channel-less draft) and draft.firstComment takes one object with optional platform *types* rather than channel keys, with null clearing it. It does not clarify idempotencyKey generation beyond the retry rule or workspaceId sourcing beyond the schema note, so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

"Create an Agency draft without scheduling or publishing" gives a specific verb, resource, and explicit scope boundary. The follow-up "Personal create_post is not interchangeable" names the sibling it must not be confused with, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either 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?

The description routes the agent through the whole workflow: channel keys from company_list_channels, media via company_reserve_media/company_complete_media, then company_schedule_post, and verification via company_get_post. It also states a negative condition (personal create_post is not interchangeable) and notes unsupported targets are skipped rather than erroring.

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