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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the draft edge case (isScheduled=false) and mentioning per-platform error details. This goes beyond what annotations imply, though it does not describe all possible return fields.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage guidance and an edge case. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, usage scenarios, and a notable edge case. It does not explain all output fields, but the output schema handles that. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% because the description does not explicitly describe the postId parameter. However, the context 'for a scheduled post' and the parameter name make its purpose obvious. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's name and type, but for a single self-explanatory parameter, a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: diagnosing a scheduled post's queue/publish state, per-platform success/error, and worker processing time. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_post (content) and get_post_metrics (metrics) by focusing on publish status, and it includes a specific edge case (isScheduled=false for drafts).

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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios ('did my post go out?' or 'why did Tuesday's post fail on LinkedIn?'), which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when not to use it, but the scenarios are clear enough for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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