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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description's 'Read only' adds little. It does disclose that per-account errors and publication links appear in the result, which is useful failure-state context, but it does not add deeper behavioral details like auth requirements or error cases such as missing task_id.

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?

The description is front-loaded and every listed return field earns its place, especially since there is no output schema. The first sentence is long and dense, but it is not padded with filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does so thoroughly: status, media ids, per-account caption, public link, error message, and first-comment state. Combined with full schema coverage for the only parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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?

The single required task_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including where to obtain it from create_post or list_posts. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but adds no extra semantic value.

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 states exactly what the tool returns for a single post, enumerating status, media ids, per-account caption/public link/error/first-comment details. It also distinguishes itself from update_post by framing the read as a prerequisite. An agent can identify both the resource and the payload without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says 'Read it before update_post', giving a concrete workflow condition for when to use this tool. It does not name every alternative such as list_posts, but the context is clear enough: this is the single-post read that precedes mutation.

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