social_media_posting_get_upload_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations. It does not explain what kind of status information is returned, whether it requires a specific authentication scope, or how it behaves with pagination parameters. Since the description carries no extra disclosure, it adds little value even with annotations present.

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?

While the description is extremely short, this is not conciseness but under-specification. A single phrase without any additional sentences fails to structure necessary information such as what the status refers to, what the response looks like, or how to interpret parameters. The brevity is not earned; it simply omits essential content.

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?

Given the abundance of similar social media posting tools and the lack of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'upload status' means in the context of the API, how the upload is identified (e.g., by post ID, by batch), or what fields are returned. An agent would have no idea how to correctly construct a call or interpret the result. This tool clearly requires far more context to be usable.

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 only 40% (userId and locationId have descriptions, while skip, limit, and includeUsers do not). The tool description 'Get Upload Status' does not compensate for this gap at all—it provides no additional explanation of any parameter's purpose, format, or relationship to upload status. For a tool with five parameters, this is a critical omission that leaves the agent guessing about skip/limit semantics and the role of includeUsers.

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 'Get Upload Status' simply restates the action already implied by the tool name without adding any specificity about what 'upload status' refers to (e.g., which posts, which platform, whether it's a batch or individual upload). It does not distinguish this tool from the many other social_media_posting_* tools that also involve retrieving information, such as get_post or get_posts. The verb and object are present but so generic that an agent cannot infer the exact purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools like social_media_posting_get_post, social_media_posting_get_posts, and social_media_posting_get_account, there is no mention of the scenario where checking 'upload status' is appropriate. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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