platform_validate

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

The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by detailing the types of checks performed and the return structure. However, it does not disclose external API calls or side-effect behavior, but given the annotation, this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences: first enumerates checks, second specifies return format and read-only nature. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and return shape well. However, it could be more specific about what problems are returned and whether it checks all platforms.

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 description does not explain the parameters 'postId', 'campaign', or 'clientId' beyond the context of 'one post'. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value to parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool validates per-platform readiness of one post, listing specific checks (media, caption length, credentials, auth, etc.) and the return format. It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_media' which likely focuses only on media.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_media' or 'brand_lint'. There is no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or which checks take precedence.

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