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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required write token and the validation step, which are useful. However, it does not mention that publishing is a public, likely irreversible side effect, nor what happens if source URL validation fails.

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?

Two short, focused sentences with no redundant information. The main action is front-loaded and the auth requirement is stated directly. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is close to adequate, but it fails to define slug and does not clarify the public side-effect nature of publishing. It gives enough to select the tool but not quite enough to invoke it with full confidence.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that write_token should be SOCIAL_POSTS_MCP_WRITE_TOKEN, which adds value, but the required slug parameter is left completely undefined, leaving a critical meaning gap.

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 uses a specific verb, 'publish', and a specific resource, 'prepared trainer social post', and adds a distinguishing precondition: 'after source URL validation'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like create_social_post_draft and list_social_posts without ambiguity.

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 phrase 'prepared trainer social post' implies this tool is for posts already created and ready to publish, not for drafting or listing. It establishes context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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