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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the status values ('pending', 'ready'), the presence of upload_url in the pending case, and the meaning of video_count, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of enumerating the full response payload.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and followed by the decision rule for each status. No redundant restatement of the name or annotations.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it checks, how to interpret each status, what to do next, and the video_count nuance. An agent can complete the full upload-to-schedule flow from this text alone.

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% for the single upload_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: the ID comes from either create_image_upload or create_video_upload (the schema mentions only image), and the same upload_id must be reused for schedule_post, clarifying identity across the workflow.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether the user finished adding images or a video,' tying the tool to the uploads created by create_image_upload/create_video_upload. That makes its role as the status-polling step in the pipeline distinguishable from the create and schedule siblings without reading any 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?

It gives explicit branch-by-branch guidance: when status is pending, show upload_url again; when status is ready, call schedule_post with the same upload_id; and a clear prohibition, 'Do not schedule while status is pending.' Both the alternative action and the blocking condition are stated.

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