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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral gotcha: the item's own `status` remains "draft" after publishing, so the agent must read `posts` to determine liveness. It also discloses the 20-item cap, ordering, and the full post-status vocabulary.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded with the returned shape and the key caveat, and the second sentence routes usage. It is dense with parenthetical detail, but each clause (status enum, 20-cap, newest-first) carries real decision value, so little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to describe the return value itself — and it does so thoroughly (postState, posts[], per-post status, scheduledAt, URL, error). For a single-param read tool the agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

A single `id` parameter with 0% schema description coverage means the description must carry the semantics. The trailing note that it 'Wraps GET /api/v2/content/{id}' tells the agent the id is a path identifier for the content item, but no format or source for that id is given, so the schema is only partially compensated for.

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 and resource ('One content item plus its live posting status') and scopes exactly what is returned (postState, posts[] newest-first, per-platform status/URL/error). That scope distinguishes it from bulk list_content and from the post-level get_post without requiring the agent to open either 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 a concrete selection rule: 'Use this to confirm a publish landed.' That is clear context for choosing this tool over publish/update_content. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, so it is not a 5.

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