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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses plan requirements (Pro or higher), returned fields (caption, rationale, account id), default status filtering, and pagination completeness behavior. This adds meaningful operational context an agent needs before calling it.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays tightly focused on what suggestions are, how to filter/page them, plan requirements, and related actions. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information.

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 still covers return fields and pagination completeness. It also covers filter defaults, plan requirements, and related sibling actions, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The description explains filtering by account_id and status and mentions paging with offset, but schema description coverage is only 50% and the limit parameter is not described in the schema or the tool description. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: list proactive post suggestions, defined as evidence-based weekly drafts written in each account's learned voice with rationales. It distinguishes suggestions from actual posts and from sibling actions like dismiss_suggestion.

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 gives clear usage context: default status is pending, filtering is by account_id and status, paging uses offset, and the tool requires a Pro plan or higher. It names dismiss_suggestion and save_as_draft as alternatives for handling a suggestion, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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