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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the asynchronous generation model and immediate "generating" return status, the paid-tier requirement, and critically the auto-publish side effect on Business/Teams with the autoPublish:false escape hatch. This warns of a consequence the structured fields alone would not reveal.

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-loads the core purpose and async behavior, then adds tier and parameter detail. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the auto-publish note is appropriately emphasized rather than buried.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the important behavioral context (async, tiers, auto-publish). The gap is undocumented parameters for the required startDate and several optional fields, which keeps it from being complete.

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 parameter meaning. It documents three of eight (brandProfileId default, integrationId default, autoPublish false=keep drafts) but leaves the required startDate and planDays, timezone, contentLanguage, competitorDomains unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 ("Create a blog content plan (the Post Planner) for a brand profile"), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_post_draft and list_blog_plans. The parenthetical naming plus brand-profile scoping makes the target unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear operational context: the plan returns immediately in status "generating" and the agent should poll list_blog_plans for progress. It also explains the tier gating (Basic+) and defaults for brandProfileId/integrationId. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use this vs create_post_draft, so it's a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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