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

Far exceeds annotations (which only state read-only). Discloses rich behavioral signals: the pending/outcomeUnknown safety rule, partial-publication handling, the shape of error objects, and the legacy-mirroring behavior. This is exactly the context annotations don't provide.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the retrieve scope, but it's a dense run-on of nested field inventories and procedural warnings that could be structurally separated. It earns its content but is harder to scan than ideal.

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-param, no-output-schema retrieval tool, it fully covers the returned structure, status semantics, and safety procedures. An agent has enough to call it and act on results safely.

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 (postGroupId) and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description explains that this ID scopes the entire group retrieve, adding light conceptual context.

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?

Precise verb+resource: retrieves a post group's details, media inventory, and platform-specific posts. It clearly delineates a read/inspection tool distinct from mutation siblings like update_post, delete_post, and company_post_action.

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?

Strong guidance on what to do after retrieval—never recreate or resubmit after partial publication, check the live account after an unknown outcome. It describes safe post-retrieval behavior but doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_posts vs company_posts.

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