Get per-network capabilities

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/no-destructive/no-open-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content: the semantics of the 'destinations' and 'link' columns and concrete per-network caveats (WhatsApp has no wall, Google Business does not publish, LinkedIn cannot hide a comment, Slack/Pinterest publish without readable comments). It does not describe freshness or cache behavior, but for a static reference matrix that is minor.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the capability scope before the per-network exceptions and the column definitions. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on structure and the 'two columns are about publishing' detail make it heavier than it needs to be for a lookup tool.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so explicitly — it defines the moderation matrix dimensions (reply/hide/delete) and the two publishing columns. An agent can interpret the response without guessing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends its budget on output semantics instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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?

Names a specific resource (per-network capability matrix) and enumerates the domains it covers — publish, private messages, comments, products, webhooks, plus the moderation matrix for reply/hide/delete. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_social_limits (quotas) and list_destinations (a specific capability's data), which it even cross-references.

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 an explicit trigger — 'Check here before promising the user something' — which tells the agent this is a pre-flight capability lookup. It routes to list_destinations for the destinations dimension. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming the sibling to prefer for quota/limit questions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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