Get post creation job

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the status enum and the returned post_id. It does not say whether CLIENT_ERROR/SERVER_ERROR are terminal or whether polling is expected, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the enum is packed inline with no wasted words.

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 usefully names what comes back (status plus post_id), and annotations cover the read-only nature. It is nearly complete for a polling tool, missing only guidance on terminal states and polling cadence.

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% for the single post_creation_job_id parameter, and the description only references the job generically. The parameter's origin (from create_post_job) and format are left to inference, but the single obvious param keeps this adequate.

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) plus resource (structured post creation job) and even enumerates the possible status values returned. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling create_post_job and get_poster_job without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied: this is clearly a poller for a job returned by create_post_job, and retrieving the resulting post_id confirms that intent. However, it never states when to call it, how often, or that it should be used after create_post_job rather than get_structured_post.

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