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

Annotations only supply the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false); the description goes well beyond by characterizing the trust level ('same as clicking Approve in the dashboard'), requiring real user intent, disclosing the story-format side effect (caption/hashtags/link won't publish), and describing the response (mediaLinks stable https links) despite there being no output schema.

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?

Four sentences, each load-bearing — the gating constraint, the user-intent requirement, the story-format caveat, and the response note — with the prerequisite relationship front-loaded ahead of nuance.

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 non-read-only mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety/authorization model, the caller obligation to confirm intent, a format-specific edge case, and the return value, leaving no gap an agent would need to guess at.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3: the schema already documents all four parameters, including the nested review object and its enums. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema carries, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 ('Approves a draft post') and immediately situates it against siblings by declaring it a prerequisite for publish_post/schedule_post. An agent can distinguish it from approve_copy, approve_strategy, and approve_brand_guide without opening any 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 explicit gating: only call once the user actually wants this exact post approved, and it is required before publish/schedule will work. It also names the review_post precondition for supplying the review object, so both when and when-not are covered.

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