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

Annotations only declare a safe read; the description goes far beyond them, enumerating the state values (online, offline, logged_out, login_needed) and what each means, the per-OS wake commands, the ~1 minute reconnection window, queued post behavior, and the fields userMessage/extensionVersion/kinds. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs to interpret and act on the result.

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 hard constraint ('Naver Blog only') and the primary instruction ('Call this before publishing'), then streams return-field semantics efficiently. It is dense and runs long with several clauses per sentence, but nearly every clause carries actionable information, so little is wasted.

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, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: state enum meanings, userMessage, queued, extensionVersion, kinds, and the wake commands. Combined with the pre-publish usage rule, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics for accountId or workspaceId (no format, defaulting, or edge-case guidance), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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+resource: checking the Naver Blog publishing bridge (browser extension) status and returning wake commands. The scope is pinned with 'Naver Blog only' and it explains the mechanism (posts written by the uplika extension in the user's own Chrome). It does not differentiate itself from the related sibling diagnose_naver_blog, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it ('Call this before publishing to Naver Blog'), what to do with the result (relay userMessage, run wake commands), and how to follow up ('call this again or get_post to check'). It also notes that publish returns the same bridge object, and names siblings that interact with queued posts (delete_post, update_post).

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