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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the set of terminal statuses, the fact that SEND_TO_USER_INBOX means a draft rather than a live post, and that postIds lag behind PUBLISH_COMPLETE by minutes (an implicit polling cadence). It stops short of naming non-terminal/in-progress states, so not a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the return-value semantics. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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 does useful work by enumerating terminal statuses and the delayed postId. However, it omits non-terminal statuses an agent polling this tool will actually encounter, and leaves accountId/profileId unexplained, leaving gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only mentions publishId implicitly; accountId and profileId — including the required-vs-optional distinction and when profileId is needed — are never explained anywhere.

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 and resource ('Check an asynchronous TikTok publish by its publishId') and defines the scope as async publish status, which separates it from the sibling insights/analytics tools. It never explicitly names the sibling it is not (e.g. get_tiktok_analytics or get_tiktok_account_insights), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied: you call it with a publishId returned by an asynchronous publish flow, and polling is hinted at because postIds arrive minutes after PUBLISH_COMPLETE. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternative tools for synchronous posts.

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