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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: batches take a few minutes, completed means nothing is pending, failure reasons match create_post, and results are retained for 7 days. It also explains the special retry caveat for Pin-may-exist failures.

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, then proceeds through result states, timing, retry guidance, and retention. Every sentence contributes operational information without padding.

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?

For a polling status tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: how to interpret statuses, how often to poll, how long results persist, and how to handle a failed entry before retrying. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single batchId parameter is already documented as the batch id returned by create_posts. The description reinforces that context but does not add format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: check on a create_posts batch and report entries as created, failed, or pending. It clearly distinguishes this status-check tool from create_posts and create_post by naming the batch workflow it belongs to.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use this after create_posts, poll every 10 seconds or so, and look up entries with a Pin-may-exist failure note using list_posts before resending. This routes the agent correctly and names an alternative when retry risk exists.

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