Verify sponsored post

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

Annotations declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but the description carries the real behavioral load: the first call writes nothing, only a preview and confirm_token are returned, confirmation requires all checks to pass, and it marks the deal `verified`. It also discloses the token-absent fallback is recorded as manual attestation.

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?

Purpose, fallback, and the two-step flow are front-loaded and ordered logically; the final 'TWO-STEP' block is clearly delineated. It is dense with several distinct concepts, but each sentence (token fallback, preview semantics, confirm requirement) 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the returned preview/confirm_token and the condition under which the write applies, which is exactly what an agent needs to drive a two-call workflow. The manual-attestation path is also covered.

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 75% and the description still adds meaning: `post` accepts a URL or id, `confirm_token` must be omitted on the first call and reused with identical arguments, and `manual_attestation` is conditioned on X API unavailability. Minor gap: it does not restate the `deal_id` format, but that is covered in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches the creator's post ... from X and checks author, required phrases/link, disclosure, and that it was posted after acceptance') and names the concrete outcome ('marks the deal `verified`'). No sibling tool performs post verification, so the agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Gives explicit conditions and alternatives: use `manual_attestation` when there is no X token, and use the two-step confirm flow otherwise. It also specifies the sequencing requirement (first call → show preview → approval → second call with confirm_token), leaving nothing to inference.

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