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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by describing the response shape: per-target media with the ownMedia flag, publish link, per-network error, and stats that are null until read or where a network shares none. It stops short of stating what happens for an unknown id (not-found behavior), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Dense but well ordered: purpose first, then return contents, then routing guidance. The enumeration of response fields is long but each item carries information an agent would otherwise lack given there is no output schema. Slightly heavy for a single-parameter getter.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value semantics and it does, including the null-stats and failed-network cases. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented id parameter, an agent has everything needed to select and call 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% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from schedule_post or get_schedule. The description adds no additional meaning about the id (format, prefix, scoping) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline holds.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Returns one post by id") and immediately scopes it against the sibling: get_schedule is named as the tool for browsing several posts. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions ("after publishing, or when get_schedule shows a post as partial or failed") and names the alternative with the condition that selects it. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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