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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is given. The description adds genuine value beyond that: results are sorted by time, drafts are returned in a separate `drafts` collection because they have no datetime, and the read spans all merchant accounts.

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?

Three dense clauses: the read/range/scope statement comes first, the filter syntax second, the drafts caveat last. No filler sentences and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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?

Covers inputs fully and discloses the shape of the response grouping (posts vs `drafts`), which matters given there is no output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't say how scheduled versus already-published entries are distinguished in the returned list, or whether results are capped.

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 0% — no parameter descriptions at all — so the description carries the full burden and does: date_from/date_to accept ISO dates or datetimes, and platform accepts ig|fb|tw|tt|yt|li|th|tg or omitted for all. Even the platform enum, absent from the schema, is enumerated here.

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?

Names a specific resource (scheduled and published social posts) and scope (date range, all merchant accounts, sorted by time), with the drafts caveat making the calendar semantics explicit. It does not name a sibling such as list_social_posts or get_social_report to contrast against, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 date-range framing plus 'platform ... or omit for all' implies when to reach for this tool, and the drafts note hints at a preview/calendar use case. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative for listing posts without a date window.

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