Get per-network capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the semantics of each returned column (destinations, link, visibility, interactions, commercial_content, publish_settings) and which networks deviate, which the agent could not infer from annotations or the empty schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the column explanations each add information. It is dense and runs long for a lookup tool, but the length is mostly earned by the per-network exceptions and column semantics rather than padding.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining the returned data and does so at the semantic level (what each column means, which networks differ). It does not describe the literal response shape, but for a capability-matrix reference tool the agent has enough to interpret and use the result.

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 per-parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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 resource — per-network capabilities (publishing, DMs, comments, products, webhooks) plus a comment-moderation matrix — with concrete per-network examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly pointing at list_destinations for destinations and create_publication for publishing decisions.

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?

It gives a clear consult-condition ("Check here before promising the user something") and routes to list_destinations and create_publication for the related lookups. It never states a when-not-to-use case, but for a zero-param reference tool the context is unambiguous.

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