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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by defining the delivery-success condition (status=completed AND provider_post_id non-null) and what a failed status carries (error_code, error) – important since no output schema exists. It still says nothing about behavior with the optional overrides (query, brand_id, workspace_id).

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 purpose and then the two facts about delivery outcome. No filler, no restatement of the title, and every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 single-record read with no output schema, the description usefully explains the terminal-status semantics, but it is silent on the returned post shape and on the optional query/brand/workspace overrides that a caller may need. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema coverage and absence of an output schema.

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?

Coverage is 50% and the description adds nothing about the parameters; it only restates that a UUID is required, which the schema already conveys via format: uuid and required: [id]. The query, brand_id, and workspace_id parameters – including the non-obvious read-vs-write rule for workspace_id – are left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource plus the retrieval key: 'Get one post by its UUID.' That is unambiguous and separates it from the list-shaped siblings such as aidelly_list_posts. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the other single-record getters (aidelly_get_scheduled_post, aidelly_get_draft), so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its UUID' tells the agent it needs an identifier, which suggests this follows a listing call. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g. use aidelly_list_posts when you don't have an ID), so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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