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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: Instagram, TikTok and YouTube process uploads asynchronously, so an accepted post may not yet be visible. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait an agent needs when interpreting results.

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, front-loaded with the core return behavior and followed by the one caveat that affects interpretation. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is largely complete and covers the key async caveat. It could go further by clarifying how this differs from get_post or by suggesting when to re-check status, but nothing critical 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%, and the schema itself explains that postId accepts an id, a user-facing number (#2), or a submission id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'a post', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Returns where a post stands on each platform') and adds a meaningful scope detail about the public link. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_post or get_video_status, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

Usage is implied by the status-checking purpose, and the async-processing note helps explain when results may be incomplete. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_post or get_post_analytics, nor any mention of polling or re-checking.

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