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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: the extension version gate, the extension_outdated error, and the full bridge.nextStep protocol (run_wake / ask_user_login / ask_user_update) with what to tell the person in each case. That is rich operational context the agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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-loads the scope and returned fields, then the handoff, then error handling. Every sentence carries information, though the bridge/error-branching section is dense and slightly long for a single description block.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering, and it covers prerequisites, error codes, and recovery steps. An agent has everything needed to call it and handle the common failure paths.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schemas 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the drafts (temp-saved posts) sitting in the blog's draft box') and immediately scopes it to 'Naver Blog only', which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_posts and list_channel_posts. It even enumerates the returned fields and sort order.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Pass a logNo from here to publish_naver_draft' names the downstream alternative and the handoff condition. It also states prerequisites (extension 0.7.2+), the failure mode (extension_outdated), and an explicit retry policy ('Do not retry more than twice').

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