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

Annotations declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it may generate content as a side effect, the draft lands in the review queue, and nothing is published or scheduled. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and then the outcome/constraint. 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully points to list_drafts as the destination and clarifies the non-publishing behavior. It is nearly complete for a 2-param tool, missing only what the return value looks like.

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 100%, so both parameters (platform enum and snapshot_id) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: turning one platform's generated trend content into a draft post. It clearly conveys the transformation, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from (generate_trend_platform_content / get_trend_platform_content), so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 implies usage context (drafting from existing trend content, generating first if needed) and where the result goes, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives like queue_trend_drafts or schedule_trend_posts. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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