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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: idempotencyKey should be reused on retry, and queued/retrying status means pending rather than delivered. It stops short of describing irreversibility or failure modes.

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 condition and the safety-critical preconditions, then tacks on retry and status semantics. Four dense sentences with little waste, though the prerequisite list could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. For a 5-param, destructive, externally-visible write with low schema coverage, the description supplies the authorization gate, prerequisite tool chain, and async status caveat — everything needed to call it correctly.

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 only 20% (channelId alone is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains channelId resolution via list_channels, the confirmed=true flag, the confirmationText authorization payload, and idempotencyKey retry semantics. draftId itself is never described.

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 (publish a reviewed existing Postlyra rich draft to a connected Telegram channel) and explicitly differentiates itself from the draft tools: 'This is the external publication action; draft tools never send.' An agent can distinguish it from schedule_post, apply_post_to_publication and create_post_draft without opening a 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 an explicit precondition for use ('when the user explicitly authorizes publishing a reviewed existing... draft') plus a prerequisite workflow naming sibling tools (resolve channelId via list_channels, inspect via preview_post, supply confirmed=true with confirmationText). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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