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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful nuance that only *published* posts and stories are returned, but says nothing about pagination flow or result volume beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentence covering the whole operation. The leading 'This tool is used to' is minor filler, but the resource and period scope are front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description is adequate to invoke the tool correctly. The notable gap is routing: it does not tell an agent how this differs from the competitor-posts sibling in a family of seven similar social tools.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds the implicit note that stories are among the retrievable types, which is already visible in the type enum.

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 concrete verb and resource: fetch published posts and stories for a given period on an account. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling social_competitor_posts_list, which reads almost identically apart from the account type.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The obvious sibling, social_competitor_posts_list, is a near-identical retrieval tool, and the description gives no cue about which one to pick based on whether the account is owned or a competitor.

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