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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return context (content map, status, timestamps, dashboardUrl), but since an output schema already exists, most of this return detail is redundant rather than additive.

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 with the identity constraint (draft or scheduled, by postId) front-loaded and the return highlights following. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a full output schema, the description supplies enough to invoke it correctly. It omits error behavior for missing ids, which would be the only remaining gap.

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?

There is only one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, but the description only restates 'by its postId' without adding format, source, or lookup semantics. The parameter is fairly self-evident, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 (fetch) and resource (a single post by postId), and clarifies scope by noting it covers draft or scheduled posts. This lets an agent distinguish it from list_drafts, list_scheduled_posts, and search_posts, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 implied: it fetches one post by id, so an agent can infer it's for single-post retrieval. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs search_posts or the list_* tools, nor any prerequisites.

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