Autopilot posting status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, yet the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the payload: on/off state, mode semantics (review vs auto), per-channel cadence, daily cost, next run, queue count, draft fields, learned notes, and blocked channels. 'Read-only, free' partly restates readOnlyHint but adds the cost angle; the only gap is return format/pagination, which is minor here.

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?

Front-loaded with the subject ('Show AUTOPILOT POSTING ... for this profile') and every clause maps to an actual return field, which is justified because there is no output schema. It is a single dense run-on with heavy ALL-CAPS and stacked parentheticals, which hurts scanability, but it is not padded.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does so comprehensively — state, mode, channels, cost, schedule, queue, drafts, learned notes, and blocked channels. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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 (Show) and resource (AUTOPILOT POSTING / the posting refill) and scopes it to 'this profile'. The read-only framing plus the alias list ('autoposting, the posting refill') lets an agent separate it from the set_post_refill and run_post_refill siblings 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?

The enumerated questions ('is autopilot on?', 'what is waiting for review?') imply the use case clearly, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and the natural alternatives set_post_refill and run_post_refill are never named as the tools to reach for when the user wants to change or trigger autopilot. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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