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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuine behavioral trait — results only exist after the post fires — but says nothing about authorization, what happens for an unfired post, or what 'per-platform results' contains. Partial disclosure for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the timing qualifier is compactly parenthesized rather than buried. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return shape could be explained, and 'per-platform results' is left undefined (which platforms, what metrics, aggregation?). Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for interpreting what comes back.

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 50%: workspace is documented in the schema, but `id` has no description. The description's 'one post' implicitly clarifies that `id` refers to a post identifier, which is real added meaning the schema lacks. It still doesn't clarify format (slug vs numeric id) or whether workspace scoping affects lookup.

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+resource: 'Fetch one post with its per-platform results', which clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like list_posts. The parenthetical '(after it fires)' adds a scoping condition. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the singular 'one post' plus the results framing makes the purpose 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?

'(after it fires)' implies a real precondition — the post must already be published for results to exist — which is useful when-to-use signal. However, no alternative is named (e.g. list_posts for browsing, get_connected_platforms for platform availability), and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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