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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds value beyond them: 'Free; changes nothing' (no cost, no mutation) and 'Needs read:posts' (required auth scope). It also enumerates the response fields (including the over-cap question), which matters given no output schema. It does not state error behavior for an unknown or stale actionId, keeping it at 4.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core read action before the when-to-use hint. Jargon such as 'expectedActionHash' and 'over-cap question' is used without definition, which costs it a point, but nothing is wasted.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so by naming the four payload elements an agent would act on. Combined with the auth scope and no-side-effect statement, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the failure/staleness case is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it only partly does. It clarifies that actionId is the *original* action ID (not a re-issued one) and hints that clientRequestId is a receipt-style identifier not to be used for status lookups, but it never explains why the optional clientRequestId is accepted here or what changing it would do.

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 ('Read one planned Autopilot post') plus the lookup key ('by its original actionId') and what comes back (status, payload, expectedActionHash, over-cap question). This is clearly distinct from the list-style siblings (soclo_autopilot_drafts) and from the mutation siblings (approve/reject_draft).

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 trigger: 'Use it after any uncertainty about an approval or rejection.' It also warns against the wrong record type ('its durable status is not a clientRequestId receipt'), which steers an agent away from a plausible mistake. It does not name a specific sibling alternative by name, so it stops short of a 5.

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