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

Goes far beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent): discloses the 30-minute expiry and why, the per-platform `account_limits` behavior (TikTok queries the platform vs YouTube/Instagram returning `aicut_api_limits`), and the actionable 403 `insufficient_scope` and 409 `episode_not_rendered` refusals with remediation. This is the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the most important fact (nothing is published) and the routing rule before the detail, and nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information. It is still a dense single-paragraph wall with capitalized emphasis throughout, and a few lines duplicate the schema, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 15-parameter, multi-platform staging tool with no output schema, the description covers every decision point an agent needs: prerequisites, render gating, platform-specific fields, scheduling semantics, and actionable error handling. Nothing essential to calling it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema is already detailed, but the description adds real semantics beyond it: fields are per-platform and a foreign platform's field is refused, the caption is sent exactly as given (never trimmed), and `schedule_at` only stages while `publish_post` commits. Some overlap exists (the disclosure-defaults guidance largely restates the schema), which keeps it from a 5.

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 (stages/prepares) and resource (a post of a finished video to a connected social account), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that actually publishes (`publish_post`). The "NOTHING IS PUBLISHED BY THIS CALL" line removes any ambiguity about what the tool does versus its downstream sibling.

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?

Explicit WHEN clause names the prerequisite tools (`list_social_accounts`, `list_videos`/`get_video` with `status: succeeded`) and the render prerequisite (`render_story_video` then wait for `story.stage: rendered`). It also names the alternative path — if the user is on a rendered card, call `review_post` instead and stop — which is exactly the sibling routing an agent needs.

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