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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (status values plus preview links), especially valuable since there's no output schema, but it doesn't state side-effect freedom, error behavior for unknown ids, or whether results change over time (polling semantics).

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 tight sentences: the return contents come first, the usage instruction second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 correctly fills that gap by naming the returned fields (state values and preview links). For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only edge-case behavior (invalid id, in-flight posts) is 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 100% and the schema already includes a 'post_abc123' example, so the description's '(empieza con post_)' largely repeats structured data. It adds mild provenance value by tying the id to the publish call, but no format or validation nuance beyond 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 definition states a specific verb and resource (returns the state of a post) and even enumerates the possible states (programado, publicado, fallido) plus preview links. Siblings are write/setup tools (wyro_publicar, wyro_cuentas), so it's clear this is a status check, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast itself against wyro_publicar.

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?

It says to use it with the id returned by publishing ('el id que devolvió la publicación'), which gives a clear trigger context tied to wyro_publicar. There's no explicit 'when not to use' or what to do if the post is still pending, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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