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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), but the description adds nothing beyond them – no note on what "canonical" vs "provider" state means, staleness, or whether it hits the provider. With annotations present the bar is lower, yet this contributes almost no additional behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the operation is simple. However, with an undocumented `id` parameter and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally adequate for an agent to invoke 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?

One required parameter (`id`) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never says whether `id` is a canonical post ID, a provider post ID, or an internal identifier – a distinction that matters given the tool returns both canonical and provider states. The description fails to 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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("post status") but the object "canonical post and provider delivery states" is jargon that doesn't clearly separate this from siblings like get_delivery_receipt or diagnose_post. An agent can guess the general area but not the precise scope.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With get_delivery_receipt and diagnose_post in the sibling set, the description leaves the agent to infer the routing decision entirely.

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