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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only adds return-content context rather than new behavioral constraints. There is no contradiction, but no extra side-effect, auth, or error context is provided.

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 sentences, with the core purpose first and the ID-sourcing tip second. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with safety annotations, this is complete: it states what is returned, what input is needed, and where to obtain a valid input. No output schema exists, but the description gives enough return context to select and invoke the 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?

The schema only provides the parameter name and minLength, but the description adds meaning by explaining that contentPostId is a valid post ID obtainable via list_content_posts. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage on the single parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a single content post' with its LinkedIn extension data and media URLs. This clearly distinguishes the tool from list_content_posts and other content-related siblings.

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 gives concrete guidance for obtaining the required ID: 'Use campaignstack_list_content_posts to find valid post IDs.' This tells the agent how to prepare a valid call. It does not explicitly rule out alternative content getters, but the single-vs-list distinction is clear.

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