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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and destructive; the description adds specificity by stating that the destructive aspect is a $0.25 payment requiring explicit wallet authorization, that no outbound actions occur, and that the output is a draft for human review. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three compact sentences with no filler. The core deliverable is front-loaded, followed by key constraints and payment information, making it easy for an agent to scan and act 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?

The description covers the main deliverable, constraints, and payment, but for a paid, non-idempotent tool with a nested input and no output schema, it leaves out the operational meaning of result_expires, result_signature, and idempotency_key. It also only vaguely describes the return as 'a draft for human review' without describing the expected structure or channels.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had the burden of explaining parameters, but it only obliquely references inputs as 'buyer-supplied information' and payment via 'Payment requires explicit wallet authorization.' It does not clarify the required brief, optional audience/source_text, or the purpose of result_expires, result_signature, and idempotency_key.

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 concrete deliverable—channel-appropriate posts—and breaks it into hooks, body copy, and calls to action. It also includes distinguishing boundaries like 'no fabricated endorsements,' so an agent can separate this from siblings like social_calendar or ad_copy.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when the user wants social post drafts based on buyer-supplied information, with no external research or outbound actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use context is clear from the wording.

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