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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent and closed-world behavior, so the description correctly spends its budget on things annotations cannot express: the meaning of transient statuses and the not_owned failure mode for foreign ids. It stops short of describing rate limits or timing/polling guidance for posts still in publishing.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is read, then the critical status caveat, then the ownership constraint. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotation hints.

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 carries the return-value burden and does list the returned fields. The main residual gap is that status values beyond publishing/processing are not enumerated, so an agent facing an unfamiliar status string has no reference.

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 100% and the postId description already states 'The post id from soclo_post_publish'. The only added semantics is that a non-owned id returns not_owned, which is useful but thin; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Read the current status of a post published from this Soclo account', plus an enumeration of what is returned (overall status, per-destination status, provider post id, platform URL). It implicitly separates itself from draft-oriented siblings (soclo_posts_get_draft, soclo_posts_drafts) by scoping to 'published' posts, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 a precondition ('Only owned posts can be read') and a status interpretation rule ('publishing/processing means NOT live yet — never report those as published'), which is genuinely actionable. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing statement for siblings like soclo_posts_list or soclo_posts_get_draft.

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