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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: per-account state, dispatch and publish timing, live URL/error, null metric semantics, draft validation issues, and next_steps. It stops short of describing auth or rate-limit behavior, but with annotations present this is still strong.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and packs substantial return-value detail into a single dense sentence. It avoids fluff, though the density and parenthetical metric list make it slightly harder to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by explaining statuses, metrics, errors, validation issues, and next_steps. It is less complete on parameter semantics and sibling routing, but the output-side coverage is strong.

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 documents workspace_id but not post_id, giving only 50% schema description coverage. The description does not explain either parameter's meaning or format, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented post_id.

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 states that this retrieves a post's status across all destination accounts, including dispatch/publish details, metrics, validation issues, and next steps. It is a specific verb+resource definition, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_posts, get_analytics, or validate_post.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to inspect a specific post's status and results. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over list_posts, get_analytics, or validate_post, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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