check_post_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a nontrivial behavior: 'per-platform arithmetic is included only for the platforms it fails, to keep the response small.' It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error cases, but the special response-size behavior is valuable and specific.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a usage trigger and a behavioral caveat with an alternative. Every sentence earns its place and no filler exists.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the output row concept, the compact-response behavior, and the sibling alternative. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 100% and the text parameter already has rich schema description (trimming, URL placeholders). The tool description itself adds only contextual meaning ('counted length, limit') rather than new parameter-level details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Check one post against every platform at once' and clearly states the output shape ('a row per platform: counted length, limit, and whether it fits'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_post by noting that check_post gives a single platform's full breakdown.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when deciding where a draft can go as-is.' It also provides an alternative by directing users to 'call check_post for a single platform's full breakdown,' making the choice between siblings clear.

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