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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by defining each status value, including that awaiting_confirmation requires user action at a confirmation link and that failures carry an error, and published includes a permalink. This goes beyond annotations and helps an agent interpret the result and decide next steps.

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?

Front-loaded core statement followed by a precise enumeration of statuses and a single worthwhile pointer to retry_post_channels. Two sentences with no filler; each clause adds needed information.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the possible status values and their notable payloads (permalink, error), and it connects to the retry sibling. An agent can call the tool and interpret the result without missing information.

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% for post_id, which is described as coming from schedule_post, publish_to_channels or list_scheduled_posts. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Show where a post stands') and resource ('on LinkedIn and on each Facebook/Instagram channel'), enumerates the exact statuses returned, and distinguishes itself from sibling retry_post_channels by noting that failed channels are handled there. An agent can clearly tell this is the per-channel status read tool.

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 description implies when to use it (to check post status after scheduling/publishing) and gives an explicit alternative for failures: failed channels can be retried with retry_post_channels. It does not, however, state when not to use it versus other read-oriented siblings like get_post_engagement or list_scheduled_posts, so the guidance is clear in context but not exhaustive.

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