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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the write-and-not-idempotent nature is covered structurally. The description adds valuable non-redundant context: plain-text-only constraint, the mandatory human approval step, and where credentials come from. It stops short of describing rate limits or what a failed publish returns.

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 short sentences with zero padding, front-loading purpose, then hard constraints, then prerequisites. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers everything an agent needs to invoke this correctly: identity context, format and length limit, mandatory approval gate, and credential source. Nothing material is missing for a 2-parameter publish tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the api_key omission rule and the 280-character maxLength. The description restates the character limit and the credential requirement but adds no new syntactic or format detail, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb (publish) plus resource (post) and scope (to Oids as the user's agent identity), which cleanly separates it from siblings like oids_like_post or oids_read_timeline. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives explicit preconditions: user must review and approve the exact text ('ALWAYS'), and the api_key comes from oids_signup in the Secure Credentials Store — a direct routing hint to a sibling tool. The when-to-use guidance is unambiguous.

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