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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: connected networks publish through the API, while unconnected ones degrade into browser tasks handled by claim_browser_tasks, which tells the agent the operation may be partially asynchronous. It still omits what happens on failure or what identifiers come back.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the scheduling default is front-loaded before the delivery-mechanism detail. The only cost is that one of the clauses references a parameter that isn't actually part of the contract.

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 an open-world write action with no output schema, the description covers the delivery model but not the outcome: whether the call returns immediately, what it returns when some networks become browser tasks, or how partial success is signaled. Given that the fallback path creates separate tasks, that omission is meaningful.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what that id refers to (a social post record? a campaign?). Worse, it introduces a 'scheduledAt' concept that does not exist in a schema with additionalProperties=false, which could lead an agent to send an argument that will be rejected.

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?

The description states a specific verb (schedule/publish) plus the resource (a social post) and enumerates the five target networks, so an agent can tell it apart from adjacent tools like send_whatsapp or check_social_post. It loses a point because it references a 'scheduledAt' input that the schema does not expose, muddying what the call actually accepts.

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?

It does explain the immediate-vs-scheduled decision rule ('à scheduledAt, sinon tout de suite') and points to claim_browser_tasks for the fallback path. However, it never says when to choose this over sibling publishing/status tools such as check_social_post, get_publication_status, or publish_page, so the routing is only implied.

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