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

Goes well past the annotations: it explains the human-confirmation flow inside the card, that nothing is published by the call or the card, that a chat message appears on confirm naming destination/visibility/disclosure/new id, that the new id supersedes the `prepare_post` id, and that cancellation sends nothing. This is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true.

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-loaded with the action and the stop condition, and every section addresses a real failure mode. It is longer than necessary, though: 'NOTHING IS PUBLISHED BY THIS CALL OR BY THE CARD' and 'COSTS NOTHING AND SENDS NOTHING' restate the same guarantee.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the return value ('the prepared post, for the card'), the confirm and cancel branches, the downstream id handoff and `get_post_status`/`publish_post` follow-up. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and then stop.

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 already explains that `post_id` is the id from `prepare_post`. The description adds the lifecycle detail that the card reads the post back from it and that a new id later replaces it, which is meaningful beyond the schema but not extensive.

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 ('OPENS THE PUBLISH CARD RIGHT HERE') and scopes it to a post that `prepare_post` has already staged. It is immediately distinguishable from `prepare_post` (staging) and `publish_post` (actual publishing), which the description explicitly disclaims.

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?

Gives explicit timing ('CALL IT IMMEDIATELY AFTER `prepare_post` ON ANY CLIENT THAT RENDERS CARDS, then STOP'), explicit exclusions (don't recite caption, don't ask public-or-friends-only or whether to post), and a named fallback ('if no card renders ... confirm in chat as `publish_post` describes').

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