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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the default compact output and the fact that verbose:true expands to the full record with every status field, plus the guarantee of 'one stable mediaLink per post.'

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-loads what is returned, then the usage guidance, then the compact-vs-verbose note. Two dense sentences with no filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the return shape by enumerating the fields. Combined with the usage routing and the verbosity control, nothing material is missing for calling this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents brandId, campaignId and verbose. The description still adds value by tying verbose to the returned field set ('adds every status field'), reinforcing the tradeoff between the compact owner view and the full record.

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 (Lists) and resource (a campaign's posts) and enumerates the returned fields, including id, channel, status, headline, and mediaLink. An agent can distinguish this from get_post (singular retrieval) without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the workflow: 'Use this to find a postId before get_post, approve_post or schedule_post,' routing the agent to concrete downstream tools. It stops short of stating when not to use it or what it is a poor fit for, so it falls just below the top tier.

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