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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond listing return content types, which are likely already covered by the output schema. There is no mention of side effects, data freshness, or any quirks. It meets the baseline but does not go beyond.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, then return categories, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is complete. It tells what the tool returns, when to use it, and provides a pointer to an alternative. The output schema covers the return structure, so no further detail is needed.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear enum and description ('Platform to get requirements for'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema, but the schema already handles it well, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed content requirements for a platform, listing specific categories such as character limits, media specifications, rate limits, and special notes. It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes from publish_content by noting that tool only has a quick reference.

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 explicitly instructs when to call the tool ('when you need specifics like exact character counts, file size limits, or supported formats') and mentions an alternative (publish_content) that has a quicker but less complete reference. This provides clear usage context and exclusion.

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