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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed world); the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the return contents, calling out the non-obvious media shape (mediaIds in slide order, not links), and flagging the failure-reason field. It also sets an explicit output-handling rule about not surfacing ids unless asked, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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 first sentence front-loads the payload contents, the second covers the one surprising shape (media as ids), and the third handles output presentation. It is dense but not padded; the final sentence is long and slightly meandering, which keeps it from a 5.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well by enumerating the fields an agent will see, including the failure case. The main gap is how to obtain a valid post_id and what happens for an unknown or archived id.

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 single parameter already documents itself as "The scheduled post id." The description reinforces that ids are plumbing but adds no format, sourcing, or validity detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

"Full detail for one post" plus an explicit enumeration of the returned fields (status, targets, scheduled and published times, permalink, failure reason) makes the resource and scope unambiguous, and the single-post framing implicitly separates it from the list-style siblings. It never names a sibling outright (e.g. sprkly_get_post_approval_status, which is the closest overlap), so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 only implied: fetch this when you need everything about one already-scheduled post. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sprkly_list_scheduled_posts or sprkly_get_post_approval_status, and no hint about where the required post_id comes from. The presentation guidance about ids is not when-to-use guidance.

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