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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: scheduled_at is null when unscheduled, and the response includes per-platform status with published URLs and media details. It stops short of error behavior (e.g., unknown post ID), 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?

A single front-loaded sentence stating purpose first, then the payload contents. The field list is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; slightly run-on but no wasted words.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values, which it does thoroughly. It covers the read-only nature via annotations and the main payload; only error/not-found behavior is left unaddressed.

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 100% for the single post_id parameter, so the schema fully documents its meaning and origin. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema states – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get status of a post by post ID') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling post_stats, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternative tools (post_stats, post_publish, post_update). The only workflow hint comes indirectly from the schema ('Post ID from post.publish response'), not from the description itself.

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