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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the caveat that job creation success does not imply posts were scheduled, and that this tool never creates or retries. That is genuine behavioral context, though polling/expiry behavior is not discussed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and key, then the important caveat. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description still indicates what comes back (progress or completion status). Combined with the warning about job creation not guaranteeing scheduling, an agent has enough to call and interpret this read-only tool, though the auxiliary parameters remain 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 coverage is 50% and jobId carries no schema description, so the description's tie of jobId to a previously created job does add meaning. However, brand_id and the catch-all query override are left unexplained, so it only partially compensates 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 specific verb (read status) plus resource (bulk calendar fill job) and the lookup key (jobId). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create_bulk_fill_job, and even states what it is not ('does not create or retry posts').

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?

Says when to use it: polling the status of a previously created bulk fill job. It also gives a useful precondition ('a successful job creation response alone does not mean all posts were scheduled'). No explicit alternative tool is named, but the context is unambiguous.

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