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

Annotations cover readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, but the description adds valuable semantic context: approving does not publish, rejected drafts disappear from list_drafts, and the return is a count. This goes beyond what annotations disclose.

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 tightly packed sentences: purpose, the critical non-publishing caveat, side effect on list_drafts, and return value. Front-loaded and zero waste.

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?

Covers purpose, caveat about not scheduling, side effects, and return. No output schema exists but the description supplies the return semantics. Missing only edge-case guidance (e.g., unknown IDs, partial failures) which would complete it.

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% and documents both params (ids array with UUID source, action enum). The description mentions 'by ID' and the approve/reject actions, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear specific verb ('approve or reject') with resource ('drafts') and scope ('several at once by ID'). Distinguishes itself from scheduling tools by explicitly stating 'Approving does NOT schedule or publish anything — use schedule_post for that.'

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 names schedule_post as the alternative for scheduling/publishing after approval, clarifying when this tool alone is insufficient. Does not address when to prefer single-draft review (review_persona_reply) versus this batch tool, so not a full 5.

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