List supported platforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: no account/authentication is required, and the response is self-describing (OAuth vs credentials, field vs optional_field, article kind). It stops short of describing pagination or full response shape, but with annotations present this clears the bar.

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 sentence but front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause carries information. It is somewhat run-on, and the parenthetical blog examples and 'title' detail are lower-value embellishment, but nothing is truly wasted.

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 burden of describing return values, and it does so at a conceptual level (per-platform auth type, credential field names, article kind). It is sufficient for an agent to know what it will get, though the exact field names and structure remain unspecified.

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 zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the shape of the returned data (fields, optional_fields, kind) which is useful orientation, though it does not enumerate concrete field names.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (social platforms and destinations PostWire can publish to), and goes further by naming the per-platform attributes returned: auth mechanism, field names, and a 'kind' of article for blogs. This clearly separates it from action siblings like post_to_social or schedule_post.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it is a discovery/reference call to run before configuring a destination. The note 'Does not need a PostWire account' is a useful precondition that helps the agent decide to call it early, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative named.

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