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

With annotations already covering read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: the draft is capped at 300 characters, ends with 'aimyear.com', and includes per-network statuses (ready, already posted, or skipped because the user posted there). It reinforces 'Posts nothing,' which clarifies the potentially misleading name. Auth and rate-limit details are absent, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 single dense sentence with a semicolon, front-loading the primary purpose. Every clause adds useful information (content fields, character limit, domain suffix, network states), though the parenthetical enumeration is somewhat long. It is efficient but could be broken into clearer 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information. It does by detailing the draft's content, max 300 characters, domain suffix, and per-network posting statuses. Combined with annotations covering safety and schema covering the date parameter, this is nearly complete for a read-only tool; only the exact return structure (field names/shape) is unspecified.

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% for the single date parameter, so the schema already documents format and timezone. The description only implies date via 'The day's' and does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it drafts the day's progress post from the record, enumerating the content (aim and progress, main step done, minutes on aim/hard work, routines, comebacks) and per-network statuses. It distinguishes from add_post by stating 'Posts nothing.' However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool for posting, so it falls just short of perfect differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to preview a draft rather than post, reinforced by 'Posts nothing.' But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct reference to siblings (e.g., 'use add_post to publish'). The agent must infer the context from the description.

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