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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does convey that the result is aggregated across all targeted networks (useful scope behavior) and that the operation is a read. It says nothing about auth requirements, whether status is cached/eventually consistent, or how partial failures per network are represented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is terse enough that it spends no words on routing or return-shape context.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only marginally complete: it does not describe the shape of the returned per-network statuses, which an agent would need given the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — post_id and api_key are both documented in the schema — so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, syntax, or uniqueness detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 (retrieve) and resource (delivery and publishing status for a post), with a clear scope qualifier ('across all targeted social networks'). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like reeling_get_analytics or reeling_sync_metrics, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as reeling_get_analytics or reeling_sync_metrics, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the word 'status'.

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