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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. However, the description adds real context beyond annotations: visibility scoping ('only brands you can see') and the fact that the response includes caller permissions ('whether you may pause, resume, or publish missed posts'). It does not mention pagination or empty-state behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Leads with the question the tool answers, then lists the payload, then the write alternative. Two short sentences plus a routing clause, no filler, every phrase carries 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 compensates by enumerating the returned information (pause status, visible brands, permitted actions), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether this call answers its question. Read-only annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing material is missing.

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?

Single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains workspace_id and its default. The description adds nothing about the parameter (e.g., how to obtain the ID or scoping effects), which is exactly the baseline-3 case when structured fields carry the load.

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+resource ('list publishing pauses' framed as 'Is publishing paused?') and enumerates exactly what it returns: workspace pause state, per-brand pause state, and the caller's pause/resume/publish-missed-posts permissions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the mutating sibling manage_publishing_pause, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'Read-only. Change it with manage_publishing_pause.' This gives a clean read-vs-write routing rule, including the implicit when-not-to-use (don't call this to change state).

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