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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond that by disclosing the observable state machine (pending | processing | completed | scheduled | failed) and the failure payload shape (code, retryable, nextAction). It stops short of saying whether completed is terminal or how long results are retained.

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?

One tightly packed sentence plus a parenthetical for the failure branch, with the purpose front-loaded before the return detail. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: status enum, caption, videoUrl on publish, and the failure object. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that postId comes from create_post or list_recent_posts. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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 (get the status of one post) and enumerates exactly what the response contains. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_recent_posts, get_analytics, or validate_post without opening any schema.

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 (poll a post's status after creating it) and it routes failure handling to retry_post via '(see retry_post)', but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_recent_posts or guidance on polling cadence/terminal states. Adequate but leaves the alternative-selection logic to inference.

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