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

The annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds behavior the annotations cannot convey: the submission is recorded and later verified for public visibility and presence of the referral URL. It does not say what happens when verification fails, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by timing and downstream consequence. Nothing is repeated and no sentence is filler.

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 3-parameter write tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: when to call it and what happens afterward. The only gap is the outcome of a failed verification, which an agent might want to warn the user about.

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 100%, so platform, post_url, and customerKey are already documented, including the enum and the personal-token omission rule. The description restates platform and public URL but adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: report a post you published that recommends GYOTAK with your referral URL. That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling, get_share_kit, so the agent must infer the boundary between getting share material and reporting a finished 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?

"Call this right after posting" gives explicit timing guidance that an agent can act on, and the two required inputs are restated. There is no exclusion clause or comparison to alternatives such as get_share_kit, so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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