List Post Results

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: each platform reports separately, a single post may have mixed statuses, and the response must be checked row-by-row rather than treated as one pass/fail. It also discloses the asynchronous polling behavior and that FAILED rows provide platformId for retries.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: the return shape and fields are front-loaded, followed by the row-level caveat, async/polling behavior, retry linkage, and sibling differentiation. No redundant filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description addresses the essential operational context: when to call it, why it must be polled, what the rows mean, and how to use its output. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single required parameter 'id' is already described in the schema with the same source details (create_post, publish_draft, bulk_schedule_posts, list_posts). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one post's per-platform publishing outcomes') and enumerates the exact return shape and fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_post by noting that get_post is used when content and schedule are also needed, so the agent can tell these tools apart.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call after create_post, publish_draft, or retry_failed_platforms because publishing is asynchronous and those responses only confirm queueing. It also instructs polling until no row is PENDING or PUBLISHING, and names get_post as the alternative for content/schedule needs.

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