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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds meaningful scope information by stating it is "Public help only: reads no user data and never sends." It also discloses the default behavior ("Defaults to a short quickstart"), which is not derivable from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then defaults, then coverage, then the sibling hand-off — a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. It is however a dense run-on of semicolon-linked clauses that takes some parsing to extract the level mapping.

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 zero-required-parameter documentation lookup with an output schema (so return shape needs no explanation), the description supplies everything needed: when to call, the default response size, how to escalate detail via level/topic, content coverage, and the boundary with get_formatting_capabilities.

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 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight, and it does for the most consequential parameter: level is disambiguated as quickstart=short, workflows=steps, reference=examples, plus the documented default. Topic values are only loosely gestured at via the coverage list (media, buttons, consent) and locale is unexplained, so the compensation is partial rather than complete.

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+resource (get the Postlyra usage guide) and enumerates the subject matter it covers: onboarding, publication modes, channel/group connections, error recovery, IDs, revisions, media, buttons, consent. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_formatting_capabilities, so an agent can separate the two 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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ("call first for onboarding, publication modes in AI chat/browser/Mini App, connecting channels/groups or error recovery") alongside a named alternative ("Use get_formatting_capabilities for full RichDocument syntax"). It also tells the agent how to pick the right mode: topic plus level=workflows for steps, reference for examples.

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