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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), it discloses the status state machine (pending/failed/successful) and that publish_url may only appear on success, plus polling advice. It does not mention token expiry, error behavior, or latency expectations, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with the trigger condition, then a scannable bullet list of statuses, then the retry/follow-up advice. Slight redundancy: the video_token's origin is stated twice (in the opening sentence and again mid-text), repeating what the schema also says.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation; the description nonetheless adds the workflow gating and polling loop an agent needs to call this correctly. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents video_token fully. The description adds modest provenance by tying the token to posts.publish_post, but no format, lifetime, or constraint detail beyond that.

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: it checks whether video publication has finished and returns per-target status. It explicitly positions itself downstream of posts.publish_post, so an agent can separate it from the publish sibling without inspecting schemas.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition (after posts.publish_post returns a video_token), a retry rule for the pending state, and an explicit exclusion (do not fetch posts.insights until successful publication and a publish_url are confirmed). This is a full when/when-not/alternative map.

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