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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it describes the compact-vs-verbose payload tradeoff and what the status text conveys ('whose turn it is and why'). It does not mention pagination or result-size limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 verb and return contents, then the usage routing, then the verbosity note. The field enumeration is dense but each item is meaningful. Slightly long in the first sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly (id, channel, dashboard-worded status, headlines, mediaLink, ask). Combined with the usage routing and verbosity note, an agent has everything needed to call 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema for verbose ('Compact by default; verbose:true adds every status field'), clarifying what the flag actually changes in the response rather than just restating its type.

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 the distinctive dashboard status framing and the `ask` field. An agent can immediately distinguish this from get_post, which fetches a single post.

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 states the intended use: 'Use this to find a postId before get_post, approve_post or schedule_post.' It names the concrete downstream siblings that consume the output, giving the agent a clear when-to-use signal.

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