Channel rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds content scope (what the rules govern), not behavioral traits such as result stability, caching, or freshness, which is the expected baseline when annotations carry that burden.

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 tight sentences: the first says what the payload covers, the second front-loads the actionable instruction. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 hint at the returned data, and it does: media, caption, and delivery-mode rules plus the draft-then-publish model. It is a bit high-level about the exact shape of the rules, but complete enough for a zero-parameter read that gates post creation.

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 per the rules the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description could clarify, and it correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 names the specific resource and its contents: per-channel media, caption, and delivery-mode rules, plus the draft-then-publish model. It is clearly a read of platform constraint data, not a CRUD operation. It does not need sibling differentiation because no other tool in the list exposes channel rules.

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?

"Read before creating posts" gives an explicit trigger condition and points at the create_post/create_posts workflow. It stops short of stating when this is unnecessary (e.g. updating or deleting posts), so it is clear usage guidance without full when-not coverage.

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