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

Annotations already declare it read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context beyond that: what diagnostic fields come back (queue state, per-platform error, worker processing time) and a non-obvious edge case (isScheduled=false for drafts never queued). No auth or rate-limit notes, which is acceptable for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the diagnostic payload, then concrete usage triggers, then an edge-case caveat. Three sentences, none redundant, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description's job is mainly routing and edge cases, which it does. The remaining gap is the ambiguity around what postId accepts, which matters for correct invocation.

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?

The single postId parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. It does add one meaningful hint — the tool accepts posts that exist only as drafts and were never queued — implying postId is not restricted to actively scheduled posts. It still doesn't say what identifier domain postId belongs to or whether draft IDs are valid input.

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 and resource — diagnose a scheduled post's queue/publish state, per-platform outcome, and worker processing time. The described data (isScheduled, per-platform errors) is functionally distinct from content-oriented siblings like get_post or metric-oriented get_post_metrics, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Give concrete trigger scenarios in user phrasing ("did my post go out?", "why did Tuesday's post fail on LinkedIn?"), which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., vs get_post or list_scheduled_posts) are given, keeping it below a 5.

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