Tag company in personal post

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the 'first match' assembly behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, or fate of the published post. This is more than a tautology but still limited.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then a compact template. There is no fluff or redundant information; 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?

With an output schema present and only three simple parameters, the description captures the essential behavior including the 'first match' nuance. It does not mention prerequisites like an active session, but given the sibling tools (session_status, session_warmup) and the low complexity, this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description's template ('<lead_text>@<company>[first match]<trailing_text>') reinforces the role of each parameter but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific action ('Publish a personal post mentioning your company page') with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like company_create_post and personal_reshare_company_post by focusing on tagging/mentioning a company in a personal post, and the assembly template further clarifies the exact behavior.

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 description gives clear context: use this to publish a personal post that mentions a company. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is evident from the first sentence. No exclusions are provided, so it falls between 'implied usage' and 'clear context'.

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