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

Annotations already declare not-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine precondition not present in annotations ('Only for approved posts') and specifies that the link must point at the live post. It does repeat the idempotency hint ('safe to repeat with the same link'), which earns no extra credit but introduces no contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the constraint and format notes follow in priority order. Every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains is the unexplained target_id and the unstated consequence of marking an unapproved post; these are minor gaps for a two-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so for permalink, specifying it must be the https link of the live post on that platform, but target_id is never explained (target vs. post vs. account). With only half the parameters clarified, this is partial compensation rather than full.

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: 'Records that a person posted a target by hand.' This is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like create_post, retry_post, or update_post, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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?

'Only for approved posts' is a real gating condition that tells the agent when this tool is applicable versus when it is not. It does not name an alternative tool (e.g. request_approval or unapprove_post) for the unapproved case, but the precondition is clear context without needing to open the schema.

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