Platform content specs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds useful context about breadth of coverage (eleven platforms plus email), but says nothing about the shape of the response or whether it is a static bundled reference versus a live fetch.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the substance is front-loaded in the opening list of spec categories. The trailing platform enumeration is long but each item earns its place by defining coverage boundaries.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: the enumeration effectively describes the returned content, and annotations cover safety. The only gaps are the return format and the behavior of the platforms filter, both minor for a static reference tool.

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%, so the schema already carries the single optional parameter; the description adds nothing about the platforms filter, which accepts either a string or an array and defaults to all. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting, and here the description contributes no extra parameter meaning.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (image/video sizes, aspect ratios, length limits, caption limits, safe zones, cadence, tips) and for which platforms, so an agent can immediately tell this is a static reference lookup. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and scope are specific and no sibling covers this ground.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content enumeration: an agent infers it should call this when it needs platform constraints. There is no explicit 'use when' statement, no mention of when not to call it, and no reference to any sibling such as content_plan or asset_brief that might also touch platform requirements.

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