List where a post can go inside an account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: that most networks return a 'does not apply' answer, that a SECRET board is seen by nobody else (a privacy caveat), and that refresh bypasses a short cache. These are non-obvious behaviors not in the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and dense with useful facts in few sentences. Slightly awkward phrasing ('and there this answers that it does not apply') costs a little readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, usage, edge cases (no-destination networks), privacy notes, and cache behavior, giving enough for correct invocation. Only the awkward phrasing and minor redundancy over the schema keep it from a 5.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it names boards as the id space, ties the returned id to destination_id in create_publication, and clarifies refresh is only for a just-created board (finer than the schema's 'Rarely needed'). This gives an agent downstream context the schema alone does not.

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+resource (list the destinations/boards inside an account) and scopes it precisely: 'The places INSIDE a connected account a post can be sent to'. It explicitly distinguishes its output from list_accounts by noting that on most networks there are no sub-destinations, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 when-to-use ('Every Pinterest post needs one of these ids as destination_id in create_publication'), when-it-doesn't-apply ('Most networks have none ... it does not apply'), and conditions for optional params ('Pass id_destination to get one board's sections', 'Set refresh only for a board created a moment ago'). This is near-complete routing guidance.

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