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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying what is read: setup fields, whether it works and why not, and newest decisions.

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?

The description is brief and structured across three sentences: domain context, what is read, and when to call it. The parenthetical field list is dense but useful, and there is little wasted wording.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return shape. It still covers the diagnostic purpose and usage context well enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the decisions parameter's meaning, bounds, and default are already documented in the schema. The description only implies that newest decisions are returned and adds no extra parameter detail beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Reads', and names the exact resource: Postkey AI setup, status, failure reasons, and newest decisions. It clearly separates reading from setting up or fixing, though it does not explicitly name the update sibling as an alternative.

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 a clear usage cue: call this before setting the AI up or fixing it. It does not state exclusions or explicitly name the alternative update tool, but the context for when to use it is clear.

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