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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that the response includes all per-network content versions, media and target accounts. The 'Read-only' phrase is redundant with the annotation, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence and the pre-edit guidance follows, which is good structure. However, the entire French translation restates the same content verbatim with no added value, which is bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes the return shape (per-network versions, media, target accounts) and states the read-only nature. Its only real gap is the unexplained workspace_uuid, which leaves the calling contract partially ambiguous.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that the post is identified 'by its uuid' (post_uuid) but says nothing at all about workspace_uuid, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented.

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 (fetch one post by uuid) and enumerates the payload scope (per-network versions, media, target accounts), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_posts or get_post_stats.

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 an explicit use case: 'when you need the exact current text of a post before editing it,' which routes the agent to this tool over update_draft_post. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, keeping it below a 5.

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