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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the credential mode semantics (autopilot publishes vs. review only prepares), per-day post quota, and whether the subscription permits publishing at all. It doesn't cover failure modes or latency, so it stops short of the richest possible disclosure.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the caller gets and closed with when to call it; nothing is wasted. The middle clause is a long comma-chained enumeration of return fields, which is slightly heavy but each item is distinct and load-bearing.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so completely: identity, credential mode, scopes, reachable channels, remaining daily posts, and subscription publishing eligibility. An agent can call this cold and know exactly what it will learn.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on the return surface, which is the right allocation for a zero-arg tool.

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 names a precise resource (the current profile's ID/name and the capabilities bound to this credential) rather than restating the 'whoami' name. It is immediately distinguishable from every sibling tool, none of which report credential state or quotas.

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 explicit ordering guidance — 'Call this before anything else' — and justifies it with an outcome ('it answers the questions you would otherwise discover by being refused'). The condition for using it is unambiguous and no alternative tool competes for the same purpose.

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