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's added value is declaring the shape of the returned data and warning that truncated sources produce bad rewrites. It stops short of describing not-found behavior or the possible values of 'state'.

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, no filler. The content enumeration comes first and the usage rule with its rationale second, so the most scannable information is front-loaded.

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 a single required param, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description does the work of compensating for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields. Only error/not-found behavior is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a read tool.

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% and the schema already explains the id-or-#number lookup form, which the description does not extend or clarify. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries all parameter meaning.

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 ('full text of one post') and enumerates what the payload contains: text, pictures, per-platform wording, and state. That enumeration distinguishes it from get_post_status, get_post_analytics, and list_posts without the agent needing to open a 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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('Call it before changing or rewriting a post') and names the alternative it is not (list_posts) along with the failure mode of using that alternative ('working from a fragment'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs before edit_post.

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