Describe platform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; "Offline — no API call" reinforces and operationalizes that (no network latency, no auth, no side effects), which is genuinely additive context. It stops short of noting whether results are cached or platform-version specific, so not a full 5.

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 short sentences, zero filler: capability first, usage trigger second, behavioral caveat last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 optional-param, read-only introspection tool, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and its cost profile. Only a hint about the response shape (e.g. required vs optional fields) is missing, and no output schema exists to cover that gap.

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% and the platform property already enumerates every key plus the omit-for-summary behavior. The description only implies per-platform granularity without adding format or matching semantics, so it sits at the baseline.

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?

"Per-platform publish field schemas and adapter capabilities" states a specific resource and scope that no sibling tool covers — it is a discovery/introspection tool, distinct from create_post and run_account_tool. An agent can tell exactly what it returns without opening the 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?

"Call before create_post/create_comment to learn required fields" gives an explicit precondition and names the concrete alternatives it is meant to precede. That is actionable routing guidance, not implied usage.

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