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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about per-platform success/failure and error details, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or data freshness. This meets the lowered bar set by annotations but does not go beyond into richer 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?

Two short sentences with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds value: the action, the scope, and the outcome details. This is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 list operation with no output schema, the description explains the main return content (success/failure per platform and error details), while the input schema covers pagination and filtering. It could be more explicit about the response shape or default ordering, but nothing critical is missing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and post_id are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses specific action verbs ('Check', 'Shows') with a clear object ('posting results per platform') and explicitly states what it reports: success/failure with error details. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts or get_post, which focus on the posts themselves rather than platform-level delivery outcomes.

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 conveys the tool's purpose clearly, which implies when it should be used, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state conditions for choosing this tool over list_posts or get_analytics. There is no 'use when' or 'use instead' guidance, only an implied use case.

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