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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by clarifying this is a pure status check that will not retry or publish a failed target, which is a behavioral boundary not encoded in the annotations.

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 short sentences with zero filler, the read/scope statement front-loaded and the behavioral boundary second. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and what it will not do. The only real gap is the completely undocumented parameters, which is a small deficiency given they are plain UUID identifiers.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions postId or workspaceId. With two undocumented parameters the description should compensate, e.g. by stating that postId identifies the publishing receipt and workspaceId scopes it, but it provides no parameter-level meaning at all.

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 (Read) and resource (current targets for one publishing receipt) plus the key returned attributes (scheduled/published state, verified remote URLs). It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings such as publishing_video_schedule or clip_share_publish. Minor friction: the tool name says 'post' while the description talks about a 'publishing receipt', which an agent must reconcile.

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 sentence 'Does not retry or publish a failed target' implies the boundary of use and hints that some other tool handles retry/publish, but no alternative is named. Usage is implied (check status after scheduling) rather than explicitly stated as when-to-use/when-not-to-use.

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