check_social_content_compliance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It describes output structure in detail (specific policy risks, phrase, reason, rewrite, verdict). However, it does not explicitly state the tool is read-only (no modifications), which is implied but could be clearer. Still, it offers strong behavioral insight.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose, scope, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Well-structured for agent consumption.

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 3 simple parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what input is expected, and what output to expect. It leaves no significant gaps for a pre-publication compliance check 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description text does not add new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., platform list, content type, content). It restates but does not extend.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Check'), resource ('social media content'), scope (8 platforms, multiple content types), and purpose (pre-policy compliance). It distinguishes the tool as a final compliance pass, which is unambiguous even without sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'BEFORE it is published', 'whenever you draft or edit', 'as a final compliance pass'. Provides clear context and no ambiguity, even in the absence of sibling tools.

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