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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds scope context (returns current revision plus approval and publishing status), which is useful. No permissions, rate limits, or failure modes are mentioned, so it exceeds annotations only modestly.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, enumerating exactly what is returned. No wasted words.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return values, the description is complete enough: it identifies the resource and the aspects of state returned. It does not need to explain return format. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior if the post 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description could compensate, but it says nothing about the required postId parameter (UUID format is already in the schema). Baseline 3 applies since the single parameter's type and format are fully specified by the schema and the description adds no extra meaning.

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?

Specific verb 'Read' plus resource 'a post' and its revision/approval/publishing status. Distinguishes itself from siblings like list_posts (plural listing) and get_campaign/get_channel_report (different resources), though it does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation.

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?

Implied usage: call this when you need the current state of a specific post. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., list_posts, validate_post) nor any exclusion conditions. Minimal viable guidance.

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