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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it is free, it refuses viral probability/platform approval/algorithm scores, and it will not accept files, URLs or scripts. That scope-limiting context is genuinely useful. It stops short of describing response format or processing behavior.

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?

Four tight sentences with the scope and negative guarantees front-loaded, and no padding. The underexplained acronym 'BPJ' costs it slightly, but the structure is efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description gestures at output nature ('editorial experiments') and its refusals, which helps. For a 15-parameter evaluation tool it still leaves the resulting checklist format and the meaning of key fields unclear, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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?

With 15 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining inputs, yet it addresses none of them individually — only a generic 'no files, URLs or scripts' note. The self-descriptive enums (views/follow/try, supported/unsupported, etc.) do some work, but field meaning like 'Fields reach BPJ' is unexplained.

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 names a specific resource and function — a 'video publishing checklist for six platforms' that produces 'editorial experiments' rather than scores — so an agent can grasp what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_video_platform_rules, and jargon like 'Fields reach BPJ' is opaque, keeping it below a 5.

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?

'Draft self-reports only' establishes the operating mode, and 'no files, URLs or scripts accepted' plus 'missing evidence stays needs-info' set input boundaries. However, it never tells the agent when to prefer this over the sibling get_video_platform_rules or search_manju, leaving usage context implied.

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