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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description goes far beyond by explaining the extension's role, the offline behavior with wake commands, the state values, userMessage for relaying, queued count, extensionVersion/kinds, and the behavior that queued posts go out within a minute of Chrome opening. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a dense paragraph but every sentence carries useful information about scope, workflow, response fields, and relationships to sibling tools. It is not excessively verbose for the complexity it covers, though it could be better structured with bullets.

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 fully explains the response fields (state, userMessage, queued, extensionVersion, kinds, wake commands) and the operational sequence. Even without an output schema, an agent would know exactly what to expect and how to use the 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already well-described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but since the schema covers them, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks the Naver Blog extension status and provides wake commands when offline. It explicitly scopes to Naver Blog and distinguishes itself from siblings like publish and get_post by explaining when it should be called.

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 instructs to call before publishing to Naver Blog, and provides a conditional workflow for when online=false, including running OS-specific wake commands and recalling the tool. It also notes that publish returns the same bridge object when offline, and mentions delete_post/update_post for queued posts, giving clear guidance vs alternatives.

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