share_content

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the disclosure burden. It does reveal the output behavior (platform-specific formatting, hashtags, install CTA), but it does not state the side-effect profile (read-only content generation, no account mutations) or mention prerequisites/error conditions involving the account parameter.

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 appropriately short: a one-sentence purpose, a compact enum-style list, and a final behavioral note. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

Given the low schema coverage and absent annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for platform/template selection and expected output. The role of 'account' is unexplained, and there is no guidance directing agents away from sibling card-generation tools when appropriate.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by defining valid platform values and template meanings. The 'account' parameter remains undefined, which is the only notable semantic gap.

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 ('Generate') and a clear resource ('shareable content') constrained by platform and template, and enumerates all supported values. It does not explicitly contrast with card-generation siblings like leaderboard_card or stats_card, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

It clearly identifies the use case: producing shareable, platform-formatted posts with hashtags and an install CTA. It does not list exclusion criteria or name alternatives such as the card tools, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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