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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the human-confirmation requirement for real accounts, the preview-link return value, and per-platform media constraints. It stops short of describing what happens on multi-network partial failures or what errors look like, so not a 5.

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?

Six short clauses, each doing distinct work: purpose, when to use, when not to use, confirmation gate, return value, and media constraints. Purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety prerequisite, the return value to surface to the user, and platform media requirements. It leaves the cross-platform fan-out behavior (per-network success/failure) and error semantics unstated, which is a nontrivial gap for a multi-target publish.

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 the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents each field including examples. The description adds real value beyond that by encoding platform-specific media rules (Instagram/Pinterest need image or video; TikTok/YouTube require video), though it adds nothing about 'medios' URL handling or scheduling formats.

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?

Specific verb pair ("publica o programa") plus the resource (un post) and an explicit platform list, so the agent knows exactly what operation it triggers. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by ruling out metric reading and by its obvious contrast with wyro_estado_post / wyro_cuentas.

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?

States the trigger ("Úsala cuando el usuario pida publicar o programar contenido") and an explicit exclusion ("No la uses para leer métricas"), which routes analytics requests to a different tool. It also adds a prerequisite gate: ask the user for confirmation on real accounts before calling with confirmar=true.

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