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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing and discloses the shape of returned data (status, public URL, publish time), which is useful. However, it never states read-only semantics explicitly and says nothing about pagination behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits for what is a 10-parameter list endpoint.

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 dense sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded, then the filter options and a concrete pattern. Every clause carries information, though the second sentence packs several filter axes into one run-on.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the key returned fields (status, public URL, publish time). Combined with fully documented parameters this is nearly complete; the missing piece is explicit read-only/pagination behavior given the absence of annotations.

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 100%, so all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, including the date/since interaction. The description's mention of the same filters adds no syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 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 and resource ('List your scheduled and published social posts'), enumerates the platforms covered, and names the returned fields (status, public URL, publish time). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling (get_shorts).

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?

Enumerates the filter axes (status, platform, request, clip, time window) and gives a concrete usage scenario: 'use date=published with since to find posts that went live after a given moment.' No explicit when-not or alternative-tool guidance, but the calling context is well framed.

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