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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is an approval-request flow rather than an immediate publish, and that it returns an approval link — exactly the kind of flow context annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying what the approval ultimately makes public or what happens post-approval, but the core behavior is well surfaced.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action leading and the return value trailing. The GBPly Q&A Manager analogy is a minor cost but earns its place as a mental model.

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?

Returns are covered ('approval link') despite no output schema, and the approval-flow nature is clear for a mutation tool. But the meaning of image_url, the effect of scheduled_at, and the consequence of eventual publication (relevant given destructiveHint=true) are left unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must do the work: it explains that faq_id refers to a saved FAQ from list_faqs and that 'publishing (or scheduling)' maps to scheduled_at. However, image_url is never addressed anywhere, so one of three parameters remains unexplained.

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: publishing/scheduling a saved FAQ as a Google post, and anchors the resource to list_faqs so the agent knows the source. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related request_create_post sibling, which also produces a post, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

The phrase 'Ask the user to approve' implies this is the approval-gated path rather than a direct create, and referencing list_faqs implies the FAQ must already be saved. But it never explicitly contrasts with request_create_post or states exclusions/prerequisites, so usage is only implied.

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