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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains what kind of option metadata is returned and that missing required options will block publication. It does not discuss error behavior or output formatting, but for a read-only lookup with full annotation coverage this is strong.

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, front-loaded with the returned data shape and followed immediately by the usage condition. No redundant or filler language.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned, why it matters, and when to call it. Annotations already cover safety and idempotency, so no important agent decision is left unsupported.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the `platform` parameter is already documented in the schema. The description gives examples of option types across Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and Pinterest, but does not add syntax or accepted-value guidance for the `platform` parameter itself. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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?

The description states a specific resource and scope: every option a network accepts in `networkOptions` when creating a post, including key, type, required status, and accepted values. It distinguishes itself from creation tools by framing this as the metadata lookup needed before `create_post`.

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?

It gives an explicit usage rule: read this before `create_post` whenever publishing to a network you have not used yet, because missing required options block publication. This is clear when-to-use guidance tied to a concrete consequence.

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