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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so an agent already knows it is a non-destructive but non-read-only operation. The description contributes the useful detail that checks are performed per network against platform rules (Instagram media, TikTok video, hashtags, API vs browser publishing), but it never clarifies whether the call writes state or what the validation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the parenthetical clause listing Instagram and TikTok makes it dense and slightly run-on.

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 should explain what the check returns (per-network errors, pass/fail, warnings) and whether it mutates the post. It does neither, leaving the non-read-only annotation unexplained for a tool literally named 'check'.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description does not mention it at all. With only one obvious identifier parameter and low complexity, the gap is small, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Vérifier une publication (social_posts)') and scopes it to per-network validation of length, media, hashtags and publish channel. An agent can tell it apart from publish_social_post, though the French-only phrasing against English tool names adds a small parsing cost.

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?

Usage is only implied: the validation focus suggests a pre-publish check, but the description never says 'use before publishing' or names publish_social_post as the follow-up action. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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