suggest_best_platforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool is read-only and uses connected accounts for recommendations, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or how recommendations are generated (e.g., deterministic vs. AI-based). This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 plus an example, no redundant information. The description is tightly written and every sentence adds value. Example demonstrates typical usage.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description omits what the recommendations look like (e.g., list of platform names, scores, reasons). It does not cover edge cases like incomplete content or missing connected accounts. Given the lack of output schema, the description should provide more details on return format.

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 input schema already describes 75% of parameters well. The description adds general context (e.g., 'media presence') but does not clarify the relationship between has_media, media_type, and media_is_video. Since schema coverage is high, the description's marginal contribution is limited.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes post content and recommends the best-fit social platforms. It mentions specific criteria (text length, media presence, connected accounts) and includes an example query, making the purpose highly specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on posting actions.

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?

The description implies the tool is for pre-publish analysis when deciding which platforms to use, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like create_post or publish_now. No direct guidance on when-not-to-use or exclusions is provided, relying on context alone.

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