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

The description goes well beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) to disclose key behaviors: it replaces the entire list each call, it does not post to platforms, it will never ask for credentials, and it instructs the agent on token security ('Keep tokens in your operator environment, read them by variable name, and never write one into a log, a note or a reply'). It also explains the handling of blocked channels ('Mark a channel blocked when it turns out to be unusable and say why'), which clarifies the side-effect of recording failures. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is concise for the complexity it covers. It opens with a clear one-sentence purpose, then logically flows through the key behavioral requirements (full replacement, platform flexibility, blocked handling, and security). Every sentence adds operational guidance; there is no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core intent and progressively adds necessary detail without rambling.

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 one complex parameter and nested objects, the description covers all critical operational aspects: it explains the full-replacement behavior, the need to mark blocked channels with reasons, the account_owner distinction is left to schema (which is documented), and it explicitly states it does not post or request credentials. There is no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing—the only omission is a concrete example, but that is not required for completeness.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single 'channels' parameter and its nested fields, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance: it explains that the platforms are free-form and can be anything ('Anything is a valid platform: moltbook, x, reddit...'), clarifies the meaning of the 'blocked' status and that the 'note' should explain why it is blocked, and reinforces that the whole list is sent each time (replacement semantics). This adds value beyond the schema's generic 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 'Declare where this business will be found,' a specific verb + resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. It further differentiates from siblings by explaining what is not a channel ('A finished product, a live listing and a published page produce zero buyers') and by stating it does not post for you, setting it apart from action-oriented tools. The description is unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling tools.

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?

The description implicitly defines when to use the tool: when you need to set the full distribution plan, replacing the previous list ('Send the whole list each time, one entry per platform'). It also gives explicit exclusions: 'Sella does not post for you and will not ask for credentials,' which tells the agent when not to use it (for posting or authentication). However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state conditions like 'use distribution_log for activity,' so it falls short of fully explicit contrast with siblings.

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