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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds the post state vocabulary and the presence of live link receipts, which is modest added context. It says nothing about behavior for missing/invalid IDs or non-owned posts, so it is adequate rather than rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core operation comes first and the returned facets follow compactly.

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, and read-only annotations carry the safety profile; the single required param is fully documented. The only real gap is sibling disambiguation against autoposter_get_post_status, which leaves the definition slightly short of complete.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents postId fully. The phrase 'by ID' restates the schema without adding format, source, or validation semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Retrieves a single post by ID') plus the returned facets (state values, live link receipts), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. However, it never differentiates itself from the sibling autoposter_get_post_status, and the enumerated state values overlap with what that sibling likely does, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting this over autoposter_get_post_status or autoposter_list_posts, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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