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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: publish_url is returned for non-video posts, video posts return a video_token for videos.check. It doesn't mention failure modes, rate limits, or auth requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by format-specific rules and response differences. No filler. Every clause 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?

Given a rich input schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral differences (media requirements, response tokens). It could mention that all posts in b2s_posts go to the same account or that the operation is not idempotent, but those are minor gaps.

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 the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by linking postFormat 0/1/2 to required companion fields (mediaObjects for 1 and 2) and explaining the response fields, which is semantic context beyond the schema text.

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 states a specific verb ('Publishes') and resource ('a post to the connected account') and identifies the exact target parameter client_user_network_id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connections.list or videos.check.

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 description explains postFormat values and when mediaObjects are required, and it names videos.check as the follow-up for video posts. It doesn't, however, state prerequisites like needing media uploaded first or limitations on which networks support which formats.

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