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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned information (platforms, login state, posting rules) and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects beyond what 'List' suggests.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and output, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no wasted words.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description explains what data comes back and when to consult it. It could mention whether pagination or ordering applies, but that is a minor omission for this tool's apparent simplicity.

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, so the baseline is 4 under the scoring rules. The empty schema provides no additional parameter semantics for the description to meaningfully complement.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('each platform'), and it details the returned data (login status, posting rules with limits and media requirements). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools preview_post and publish_post, though its informational scope is clear.

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 second sentence gives a clear usage context: 'Read the rules before drafting so each platform gets text that fits.' This tells the agent when to call it, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: nothing is published. It nonetheless does not explain what "validate" actually does (hard errors vs. warnings, whether it contacts platform APIs, any rate limits) or what a caller gets back, so the behavioral picture is only partially complete.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the parameter notes are laid out as a tight list, each adding format detail rather than restating the schema. The parameter list is slightly long but every entry carries concrete example values that earn their place.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it covers the purpose, the non-mutating behavior, and the higher-value parameters with examples. The remaining gaps, what a validation result contains and the text/title parameters, are modest for a preview tool but keep this short of full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for four of six parameters with concrete formats (platforms as ["x","linkedin"] or ["all"], media_paths as absolute Mac paths, overrides as per-platform text, options as per-platform settings with youtube/tiktok/linkedin examples). text and title remain undocumented, but the added semantics substantially exceed the bare schema.

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?

"Validate a post for each platform without publishing" gives a specific verb (validate), a specific resource (post), and an explicit scope (per platform, no publish side effect). The phrase "without publishing" cleanly separates it from the publish_post sibling without needing to name it.

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 "without publishing" framing implies this is a dry-run to use before publish_post, and the platforms/media/overrides parameter notes imply the typical call shape. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over publish_post or that it should be run first, leaving the routing to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that confirm gates actual posting and that failed-validation platforms are skipped and reported, but it says nothing about irreversibility, auth requirements, or what a partial-failure result contains.

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 tight sentences with the precondition front-loaded and the confirm gate placed immediately after. Every clause carries operational weight and nothing is redundant.

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?

A 7-parameter, 2-required mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs substantially more coverage than this. The critical non-confirm parameters are undocumented, leaving an agent unable to construct a correct call from the definition alone.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'confirm'; text, title, platforms, options, overrides, and media_paths are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opening 'Publish a post' is a specific verb and resource, and the mention of showing 'the preview' implicitly distinguishes this from preview_post and list_platforms. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 gives a concrete precondition ('only call after showing the user the preview and getting an explicit go-ahead') and a gating parameter ('set confirm=true to actually post'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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