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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context with 'asynchronous', signaling that results may not be final on first call, but says nothing about what status values exist or whether repeated polling is expected.

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 tight sentence with the action and lookup key front-loaded and zero 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?

For a read-only status check with no output schema, an agent gets the essential 'what' but not the return shape (e.g., possible statuses) or the two remaining parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description only clarifies publishId (the identifier of the publish operation). accountId (required) and profileId (optional) are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Check) and resource (asynchronous Facebook Reel/video publish) keyed by publishId, and the 'Facebook' qualifier distinguishes it from get_tiktok_post_status and get_youtube_post_status. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the platform scoping makes the target 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 word 'asynchronous' implies this is a polling tool used after initiating a publish, which gives implicit context. However, it never states when to call it versus an alternative, nor any precondition (e.g., that a publishId must first be obtained from a create/publish call).

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