Capability map (start here)

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free.' Beyond annotations, it discloses token-refresh semantics (e.g., X access tokens live 2h, past expiresAt with hasRefreshCapability=true is normal), which is crucial behavioral context for interpreting integration status and prevents false conclusions.

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?

The description is front-loaded with 'START HERE' but then runs on as a massive single paragraph enumerating a long list of capabilities. While the detail is useful for a capability map, the lack of structural breaks and its length hurt readability; it is not concise.

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 zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it lists all major content areas (lifecycle, thread rules, platformData, org model, metrics, AutoSEO, DM Funnels, integrations, etc.) and provides operational semantics like token refresh behavior. No gaps are apparent for the tool's purpose.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so the description need not explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter info, which is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as the 'authoritative machine-readable capability map', then enumerates its contents in detail. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the start-here map and explicitly saying 'Trust this over inferences from other tools' raw fields.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'START HERE when mapping what TimeToPost can do.' It also gives an alternative-avoidance directive: 'Trust this over inferences from other tools' raw fields,' which clarifies when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools.

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