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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the leading 'Read only.' adds nothing new. The genuine value is the disclosure of what the log contains — per-channel attempt history with platform error text — which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying anything about volume, pagination, or retention of old attempts.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the read-only signal and the returned fields, then the routing guidance. The opening 'Read only.' duplicates the annotations and the second sentence is dense with parenthetical examples, but neither is wasteful enough to obscure the core message.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what is returned, when to call it, and what to do with the result. The remaining gaps (pagination, volume) are minor against annotations that settle the safety profile.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the pattern and provenance ('from postfjord_list_calendar or postfjord_create_draft'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description never references postId, adding nothing beyond it — 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?

The description names a specific resource and scope — 'every publish attempt of one post, per channel' — and enumerates the returned fields (attempt number, status, timestamp, platform error). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from postfjord_get_post (post state) and postfjord_publish_now (a write action) 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?

It states the precise trigger — 'use it when postfjord_get_post shows a failed or partial channel' — and the downstream purpose, deciding whether a content fix plus postfjord_publish_now will help. Both the entry condition and the follow-up route are named explicitly, so no inference is required.

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