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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains account resolution behavior ('the server resolves the connected account'), the natural-language or ISO format for scheduledAt, and that omitting scheduledAt produces a draft. It does not describe the response, but the creation/scheduling behavior is clear.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: use-case examples, the critical 'NEVER call list_accounts first' warning, parameter syntax, and routing to siblings. The primary action is front-loaded, with richer guidance following in a structured way.

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 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers selection, scheduling semantics, account resolution, and sibling routing. The only omissions are media/timezone semantics and return behavior, but neither blocks correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description compensates for the most non-obvious parameters: platforms should only contain the platform name, and scheduledAt accepts natural language or ISO. text is inferred from 'supplied content', though media and timezone receive no semantic guidance 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 opening line uses a specific verb+resource ('Create a NEW social post') and explicitly scopes to posts that do not exist yet ('Use whenever the post does not exist yet'). It also distinguishes itself from schedule_post and publish_post_now, and the examples clarify the intended use.

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?

Directly states when to use ('Use whenever the post does not exist yet') and gives concrete user-intent examples. It explicitly excludes existing drafts ('For an EXISTING draft use schedule_post'), warns against list_accounts, and routes immediate publishing through publish_post_now.

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