get_posting_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: values are live from TikTok, degrade to a safe fallback, and caps are reported with current usage (i.e. a mutable snapshot). It does not explain the fallback's shape or error behavior.

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 short lead sentence followed by a single colon-delimited list, so the purpose is front-loaded. The list is dense and each item names a distinct returned fact, though the long clause about the TikTok creator's privacy levels and video limit is slightly run-on.

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 must carry the return payload, and it does so by enumerating every category of data returned. It stops short of describing the response's structure, nesting, or how the TikTok fallback is signaled, which leaves a small gap for a discovery-type tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call is argument-free and result-deterministic per account.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get posting capabilities') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: connected targets, TikTok privacy levels and video limit, post types, and plan caps with current usage. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like get_account or get_overview without opening any schema.

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?

'What to read before building a post' explicitly frames the call as a pre-flight step before create_post/schedule_post. It gives a clear trigger condition but does not name an alternative tool or state when not to call it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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