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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower; the description adds real context on the returned shape (per-channel outcome, public link) and on the meaning of a partial result. It does not mention pagination or missing-post/error behavior, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the operational caution. Slightly compressed phrasing ("Read targets, not just status") costs a little clarity but no sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it identifies the post, its per-channel outcome, and the public link. What remains thin is the input side (postId provenance) and error behavior for a nonexistent post.

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 0% and the sole parameter postId is never described in the text — no format, no indication of where the ID comes from (create_post/list_posts). The parameter name is largely self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond it.

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 names the resource ("The post") and its returned scope (per-channel outcome plus public link), which is more specific than a bare 'get a post'. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g., post_results or list_posts) to sharpen the boundary, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Read targets, not just status" implies when this tool is useful (diagnosing partial per-channel outcomes) and warns against republishing, but it never states when to prefer this over post_results or list_posts. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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