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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: unsupported platforms are omitted from results and presets that end up empty are skipped entirely. It does not mention ordering of results, which is the only notable gap for a read tool.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: identity of the resource, how to consume it, and edge-case filtering. The critical instruction (create tools take platforms, not preset names) is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 carries the burden of describing return content, and it does: preset entries include platform combinations and cross-link settings, minus unsupported platforms. For a zero-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result correctly.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to compensate for; baseline is 4. The description's discussion of `platforms` and cross-link fields refers to returned data rather than inputs, which is useful but not a parameter-semantics contribution.

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 ('List publishing presets') and immediately defines the resource as 'saved platform combinations (system presets plus the user's own) with their cross-link settings', which no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this from list_accounts or list_feeds without opening any schema.

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 routes usage: 'The create tools take platforms, not a preset name, so pass a preset's `platforms` (and cross-link fields) to create_post / schedule_post / queue_post.' This names the downstream alternatives and tells the agent exactly what to do with the output, closing the most likely misuse path.

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