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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by enumerating what 'in full' means — title, type/role, platforms, publish timing, status, captions/CTA, parent script or project, and a media summary — which tells the agent how much payload to expect versus a list row. It does not cover not-found behavior, but with annotations carrying the risk profile this is a solid addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that spends its length on the field breakdown rather than preamble. The enumeration is long but each item earns its place by previewing the return shape; a slightly tighter grouping would read better.

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 burden of describing the response and does so comprehensively, listing every category of returned data. Remaining gaps — error/not-found handling and any access constraints on the referenced project or script — are minor for a simple read-by-id tool.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already explains that the id comes from search results or the list view. The description adds no further semantics about the identifier, so the baseline 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 and resource ('Fetch one post on the content calendar') and signals single-record scope with 'one post', which implicitly contrasts with list-content-schedules. It does not name the sibling alternative explicitly, but an agent can tell this is a by-id detail fetch rather than a list operation.

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: an agent infers this is the detail call after search or list. There is no explicit 'use this when you have an id; use list-content-schedules or search to find one first' routing, and no note on what happens if the id does not exist.

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