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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: exactly which fields come back per view and that failure reasons are surfaced when a publish failed. It omits behavior for a nonexistent post_id (error vs empty), which keeps it from 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?

It is front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then two clearly parallel clauses for the two views. The field enumerations are long but each item is informative; a slightly tighter structure (e.g., bullets or comma-grouping) would read better than the trailing 'and ... and ... and' chain.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly for both views — listing returned fields for view=post and the diagnostic categories for view=missing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 would be 3, but the description materially enriches the 'view' enum by spelling out the contents of each mode rather than restating 'post or missing.' post_id itself gets no extra explanation, but the schema is adequate there.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with scope: 'One post by ID.' It then splits the tool's two modes by name (view=post, view=missing), which cleanly separates it from list_posts and from mutation siblings like update_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?

It states the default mode and explains what view=missing is for ('how to fix it before the post can publish'), giving clear context for choosing between them. It does not, however, point to validate_post or list_posts as alternatives for adjacent tasks, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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