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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds non-obvious behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the error.message/error.code/error.retryable fields exposed on FAILED, and the important caveat that a successful status query does not mean the post was published.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the failure-mode caveat. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant restatement of the title.

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 correctly enumerates the payload facets and the error shape, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. Missing only explicit routing against sibling read tools, which is a minor gap for a simple single-parameter getter.

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?

There is a single parameter, postId, with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about ID format or source, which is acceptable at this coverage level and lands on the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb (get) and resource (a specific post) and enumerates the returned facets: content, status, schedule, and social account info. It implicitly separates itself from list_posts by scoping to one post, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is implied by 'a specific post' and the FAILED-status troubleshooting note, which tells the agent what to do after the call. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_posts, get_post_performance, or get_content_insights, and no stated prerequisites.

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