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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations, such as the GENERATE_IMAGES log status values and the fact that the overall post can still be COMPLETED even if image generation fails. 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 and well-structured, using two focused sentences. It provides necessary context without any redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The description conveys the expected outcome (status and processing logs) and highlights an important edge case about image generation failures. While it does not detail the exact output schema, that information is indicated as externally available, so the description is sufficiently complete for usage.

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?

There is only one parameter, embedPostId, and its schema description ('The embed post ID to check') fully covers its meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the score stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: checking generation status and processing logs for a post. It includes useful specific detail about the GENERATE_IMAGES step, which distinguishes it from general post retrieval tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 gives implicit guidance about what to expect, especially the best-effort nature of image generation and the possibility of COMPLETED overall status despite an image failure. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings like get_scheduled_post or get_output.

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