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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavior beyond those hints: posts go to settings-selected or explicitly given networks, networks where the user already posted are skipped, and a retry never posts twice. It also discloses the today/yesterday limit and the Pro requirement.

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 a tight, front-loaded paragraph with no wasted sentences. The safety condition appears immediately after the action, and the remaining constraints are packed into a few efficient clauses.

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?

For a write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation context: explicit user confirmation, draft defaulting, network selection, skip behavior, idempotency, and date limits. It does not describe return values or failure/partial-success behavior, and “Pro” is left unexplained, but overall it is complete enough to call 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 coverage is 67%, so the description must add meaning for the under-documented parameters. It does: text defaults to the draft from get_post_draft and is the user-edited draft, date is limited to today or yesterday, and networks defaults to settings but can be overridden. It could still be slightly more explicit about how networks interacts with settings, but it meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 and resource: posting the day's progress to social networks. It distinguishes this from the sibling get_post_draft by explaining that text defaults to the draft from that tool, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: only after the user explicitly said to post. It also names the draft source, the date window (today or yesterday only), and the network-selection behavior. These are clear when-to-use and constraint rules, with get_post_draft implied as the preceding step.

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