post_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks live/removed/deleted status and returns score and comments, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose whether authentication is required, what happens for invalid URLs, or whether there are rate limits. The description gives some insight but lacks completeness.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and is immediately understandable. It earns its place without fluff.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete but lacks details about the exact return format or error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what 'with its score and comments' means precisely (e.g., status values, data types). This is a moderate gap but not fatal.

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?

The schema has one parameter, 'url', with no description. The tool description implies that the URL is the post URL, but it does not specify expected format (full URL, path, etc.) or any constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but only provides minimal implicit meaning. This is a notable gap.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Check') on a specific resource ('Reddit post') with specific outcomes (live, removed, deleted) and additional data (score, comments). This differentiates it from the sibling tools, which are unrelated (subreddit_rules, threadfox_full_kit). No ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose is so specific that an agent would naturally know when to use it. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. Since the siblings are unrelated, this is less critical, but explicit guidance would improve it. Score 4 reflects clear context without exclusions.

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