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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it reports live usage from the platform, and reveals an internal rate cap that can cause publish to fail independently of platform allowance. This goes beyond the basic read-only hint.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: function, usage timing, differentiation from static limits, and a caveat about rate limiting. No fluff or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description could have specified the return format, but it clearly conveys the core measurement (used vs. allowance) and provides context for interpreting when rate limits might still occur. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the description's conceptual clarity, though a bit more detail on what is returned would make it fully complete.

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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions in the schema itself. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it does not need to compensate.

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 reports how much of the 24-hour publishing allowance is used for posts, replies, and deletes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_platforms by noting 'not the static limits in list_platforms', making the purpose specific and unambiguous relative to sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage timing with 'Check this before a burst of publishing' and contrasts itself with list_platforms as the alternative for static limits. Also warns that publish can return rate_limited even when allowance remains, giving practical guidance for when to check quota.

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