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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, and it explains the status semantics including the non-obvious rule that a draft is SCHEDULED with no schedule_datetime. It does not mention pagination behavior or what happens when neither account identifier is supplied.

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 dense sentences with the resource and sort order front-loaded, followed by the enum vocabularies. No filler, and the parenthetical draft clarification earns its place by resolving an otherwise ambiguous status.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers the domain enums well but omits pagination semantics (page/per_page) and the return shape. The bigger gap is the unresolved tension between 'one social account' and account_id/account_uuid both being optional, leaving an agent unsure whether an unscoped cross-account listing is legal.

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 0%, so the description carries the load and mostly succeeds: it supplies the platform enum (ig|fb|tw|tt|yt|li|th|tg) and status enum values that the schema leaves as bare strings, plus the account_id/account_uuid pairing. It leaves page and per_page completely undocumented, and it implies an account identifier is expected even though both are optional in the schema.

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 posts of one social account) and adds a scope qualifier (single account via account_id/account_uuid, newest first). It is clearly distinguishable from list_social_accounts or get_social_top_posts by its resource, but it never names those siblings or contrasts itself with them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping language ('Posts of one social account'), so an agent can infer this is the per-account post listing. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as get_social_top_posts, list_post_comments, or social_preview_calendar.

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