validate_social_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the checks performed (hash comparison plus independent layout checks), but it stays silent on what happens on failure, whether multiple violations are reported, and whether the hash step requires the source photo to be accessible.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists the checks — no filler. It is jargon-heavy ('canonical exports'), but every clause carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the result shape, yet it never says whether the tool returns a boolean, a list of violations, or throws on failure. Combined with the undefined filePath semantics and unstated prerequisites for the hash check, an agent can guess the intent but not call or interpret it reliably.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, filePath, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not resolve what it points to — a single export file, a directory of canonical exports, or an export plus a sidecar photo. The plural 'canonical exports' and 'original photo hash' hint at related inputs but do not define how they are located relative to filePath.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') plus a concrete checklist of what is validated: canonical exports, original photo hash, rendered text contrast, visibility, collisions and bounds. It clearly reads as a post-render validation tool, which is distinguishable from creation siblings, but it never names or contrasts the closest alternative (qa_social_layout).

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (must a render already exist? must the original photo still be present for the hash check?), and no mention of the sibling QA/validation tools. The only hint is the word 'Verify', leaving sequencing to inference.

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