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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, offering little behavioral detail. The description compensates by disclosing side effects: recording marks a channel active, undeclared platforms are added, and it explains the consequence of including a service id. This goes beyond the minimal annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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 description is relatively long but every sentence earns its place—purpose, side effects, param guidance, and audience context are woven in without fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded; the most actionable param guidance follows naturally.

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 tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and parameter nuances sufficiently. It doesn't mention return value, but given no output schema and the logging nature, that omission is acceptable. The key contextual elements—why this tool exists, when to use it, and what to record—are all present.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value on top of schema: it clarifies that summary should capture the claim, not the act of posting, and elaborates on the importance of included_service_id for purchase paths. These enrich the otherwise terse schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that you actually published something.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling distribution_set ('the plan says where you intend to be found, this says what went out'), so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting 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?

Explicitly positions this as the evidence half of distribution, contrasting with the planning half. It also gives concrete guidance on what to record ('Say what the post claimed, not that you posted') and when to set included_service_id, covering both when and how to use it.

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