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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the remaining burden is light. The description adds a genuine behavioral quirk: isScheduled=false for drafts that were never queued, which an agent cannot infer from schema or annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the diagnostic purpose, then usage examples, then an edge-case caveat. No padding; each sentence carries distinct information.

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-value explanation is not required, and the description still adds the draft/queue edge case. The only gap is routing guidance relative to siblings such as get_post.

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 0% and the description says nothing about postId's expected format or source. The name itself is largely self-explanatory (a post identifier), so the gap is moderate rather than severe, but the description adds no meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Diagnose what happened to a scheduled post') and enumerates the exact facets returned (queue/publish state, per-platform success/error, worker processing time). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_scheduled_posts (listing) and get_post (content retrieval).

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?

Provides concrete trigger scenarios in user-voice ('did my post go out?', 'why did Tuesday's post fail on LinkedIn?'), which gives an agent an explicit when-to-use signal. It does not name alternatives (e.g. get_post for drafts) or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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