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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the daily AI limit and the possibility of skipping platforms (returned in 'missing'). It reinforces the non-publishing behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. It front-loads the main action and adaptation rules, then covers return format and side effects in a second sentence. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description provides a clear return format including the structure of drafts and the missing array. It explains adaptation per platform, the non-publishing nature, and the daily limit. An agent has enough information to call and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides; it focuses on tool behavior. This meets the baseline for high coverage, adding no extra value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool writes one draft per platform from a single idea, adapted to each network's rules. It explicitly says 'Nothing is published', distinguishing it from sibling publishing tools like post_to_social. The verb 'Writes' and resource 'draft' are specific, and the scope is well-defined.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for drafting, not publishing, which implicitly differentiates it from siblings. It also mentions the daily AI limit, which is a usage consideration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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