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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive; the description goes well beyond by documenting absence semantics ("Empty means no history", performance "Absent when nothing is measured yet"), limit precedence ("they hold the owner's own per-account limit when lower, `limitSource: \"owner\"`"), multi-account behavior ("fewer per account"), and the failure mode ("`error: \"account_ambiguous\"` lists them"). That is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to interpret results and recover from errors.

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-loaded with a one-line summary and organized into bullets, which is good. But it is long and heavy on return-payload field detail (logoUrl, brandVersion, preferredTimes, queue slot internals) that largely duplicates the declared output schema, and the Args block is formatted as plain prose rather than structure. Several clauses could be trimmed without losing callable 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?

For a zero-required-parameter, 8-argument, open-world context aggregator with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, when sections are absent, error recovery, and argument precedence. Minor gaps remain around how the routine branch interacts with explicitly named accounts and how partial multi-account results behave, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 38%, and the description compensates by annotating every undocumented parameter: platform (enumerated values, implied-by rule, error when neither is given), account_id (ambiguity), account_ids (one post per account, override precedence), workspace_id (optional-with-one-workspace), routine_id (what it adds and account fallback). It adds real meaning—precedence and error behavior—not just restatements.

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 opening line names the resource precisely ("the drafting bundle for one account, or several: workspace, account, and the account's recent posts") and enumerates the payload sections, so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not name a sibling tool it replaces (e.g. list_social_accounts or get_performance), so differentiation has to be inferred from the bundle framing rather than stated.

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?

Usage is clearly implied ("Lean on what the top posts share ... when choosing what to write"), i.e. call this before drafting. Args section gives good selection guidance: platform is implied by account_id, account_ids overrides the single-account params, account_id is required when ambiguous, workspace_id is optional for single-workspace users, routine_id reads the routine's own accounts. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, which keeps it below a 5.

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