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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and "FREE and read-only" is redundant. The description earns credit by disclosing semantics beyond annotations: the meaning of each status/followUp state, that a skipped item was NOT sent, and that handoff_ready posts were not published by AIGE. It says nothing about error behavior for an unknown postId or any rate limits.

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?

One dense run-on paragraph mixing return fields, status interpretation and handoff rules, with nested quotes that are hard to scan. Front-loading is good (it starts with what is returned), but the parenthetical about `threads.extras.quotePostId` belongs to another tool and dilutes focus.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates thoroughly by explaining status, permalink, followUpState/followUps, skipped vs failed, and handoff fields. The only real gap is identifying what postId to pass and what happens when the post is not found.

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 only constrained by pattern/length, so the description must carry the meaning. It never says the input is the AIGE post id or where to obtain it; the contrast with `providerPostId` ("the post's id on its platform") only partially implies the distinction.

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 makes clear this returns a single booked post with its status, time, media, permalink and IDs, which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like antix_list_scheduled_posts. It never states the verb plainly ("fetch/retrieve a post by postId"), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance: "Use it to confirm a post went live," with the decision rule that only status: published plus a permalink means live, and that in-progress means Meta is still processing. It also prescribes behavior for followUpState values and handoff_ready. It lacks an explicit "don't use this for X, use sibling Y instead" routing statement.

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