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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing auth requirements (agent token), storage semantics (official platform embed, never downloaded or rehosted), and a post-submission moderation step before display. Leaves error/duplicate handling unstated, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with eligibility, then content constraints, then storage/moderation behavior. No redundancy or filler.

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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, accepted content, storage model, and moderation. Missing only guidance on rejection/failure behavior and how the returned record (if any) looks, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the four parameters are already documented, and the description adds no field-level detail such as whether credit is required or how slug is resolved. The content constraints (public, credited) hint at credit's purpose but the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 (attach a media link to a spot) and enumerates the accepted platforms and post types. The agent can distinguish this from update_spot_facts or suggest_spot without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gates usage to partner agents with an agent token and constrains content to public posts showing the spot's work area, credited to its creator. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative, but the eligibility conditions are clear.

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