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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that by naming the full status vocabulary and warning that TikTok reports processing for a few minutes before confirming. It does not mention polling cadence, rate limits, or whether failed statuses are terminal, which keeps it below 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the status vocabulary, then the one platform-specific caveat. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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-shape details are unnecessary; the description nonetheless covers the interpretations the output schema alone would not convey (the meaning of each status and TikTok's transient processing state). For a one-parameter read-only status tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 contentId and where it comes from. The description repeats that provenance ("created by publish_now or schedule_publish") without adding format or validation meaning, so baseline 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 ("check whether a post ... went out") and enumerates the outcome space per platform (queued, processing, published, failed, with links and error reasons). It names the two sibling tools that produce a contentId (publish_now, schedule_publish), so an agent can place it precisely against them.

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 makes clear this is used after publish_now or schedule_publish to verify delivery, and the TikTok caveat implies polling rather than one-shot checking. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. don't poll before N seconds, don't use for pre-publish validation), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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