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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates the returned per-network state and explains the semantics of the `editable` field relative to update_draft_texts, plus scopes results to authorized brands. It doesn't mention error behaviour for missing or unauthorized post IDs.

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?

One compact sentence plus a short clause on `editable`, front-loaded with the resource. The enumeration of return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is dense and free of filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with full safety annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the call returns and the meaning of the non-obvious `editable` flag. The only meaningful gap is the absence of any note on failure behaviour for unknown or out-of-brand post IDs.

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 single parameter `post_id` is documented only by its uuid type and regex pattern, and the description never mentions it. The schema format does let an agent infer the expected identifier shape, but the description adds no meaning about where the ID comes from or what happens if it belongs to another brand.

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?

"Detalle de una publicación" states the resource and the payload it returns (full texts, per-network text/title, status and link per network), so an agent knows this is a single-post read. It lacks an explicit verb and never contrasts itself with list_posts, get_post_stats or compare_posts, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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 use case (inspecting a post's content and per-network state) is implied by the field list rather than stated as a rule. The only explicit routing is the note that `editable` tells you whether update_draft_texts can modify the post, which usefully links to a sibling but doesn't say when to call this instead of list_posts or get_post_stats.

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