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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description's added value is semantic: it warns that queued status is not publication and that completed counts require durable provider evidence. That is genuinely useful state-interpretation context beyond structured fields, though permissions and freshness/staleness behavior are not addressed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, each carrying content that affects agent behavior. The only waste is the repeated title line 'get Post Boost' at the top of the body.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope plus status semantics. However, for a tool with a nested object parameter and ambiguous status fields, it does not identify which boost states trigger incomplete data or what evidence 'durable provider evidence' refers to, leaving some interpretive gaps.

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 required parameter (a nested path.id UUID) exists, and the schema itself documents it as the ID returned by the corresponding Post Boost read or create operation. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but with a single well-described nested identifier the baseline expectation is high and the description neither misleads nor needs to compensate heavily.

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 verb and resource ('Read configuration and action progress for a boost owned by this workspace'), which clearly separates a single-boost read from its siblings like getPostBoostPreview or getPostBoostPool. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

The workspace-ownership clause implicitly tells the agent this only reads boosts belonging to the current workspace, and the 'Queued does not mean published' line guides interpretation of results. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or reference to alternatives such as listPostBoosts, leaving selection guidance implied.

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