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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes further by disclosing deferred publishing semantics, firstCommentResult state values, and that acceptance is not delivery. That is meaningful context beyond the structured hints, though auth/permission requirements are not covered.

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?

Three dense sentences, all doing work, with the core read action front-loaded. Some jargon (outcomeUnknown, firstCommentResult) is packed in without explanation, but no sentence is wasted.

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, and the description usefully enumerates the notable returned fields and their state values. A read tool with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage is adequately served, though return shape details are only partial.

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 coverage is 100% and the workspaceId/postGroupId descriptions already carry the ID-provenance warnings. The description restates includeApproval's opt-in behavior, adding little new syntax or format detail, so 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 ("Read full Agency post detail") plus scope details (publishing deferrals, comment results). It distinguishes itself from company_get_post_summary by emphasizing "full" detail, though it does not name the sibling explicitly.

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 concrete usage directions: "inspect outcomeUnknown before any manual comment" and "Verify writes here; asynchronous acceptance does not mean delivery." It lacks explicit routing between the several other post-reading siblings (company_get_post_summary, company_list_posts, get_post), which keeps it from a 5.

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