Get a post's approval status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — which it does by disclosing the returned state vocabulary, including that a rejected status may carry the reviewer's note and that 'NONE' means approval was never requested. This resolves the main ambiguity for an agent. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or latency, which are minor for a single-id read.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result states, with the edge case ('NONE') placed last. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read with no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden — and it does, spelling out the possible statuses and the never-submitted case. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so postId is already documented. The description adds a small amount of meaning by implying the post should be one routed through the approval flow, but it gives no format or syntax guidance beyond the schema's blanket baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a post's approval status') and enumerates the possible outcomes (approved, rejected with reviewer note, pending, NONE). It explicitly ties the tool to the sibling postsider_request_approval, so an agent can distinguish it from adjacent post tools like postsider_get_post or postsider_get_publishing_state.

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?

It clearly places the tool in context: use it on a post that was submitted via postsider_request_approval, and it explains what a 'NONE' result means. It does not name an alternative tool or state exclusions, but the implied usage is unambiguous for this narrow lookup.

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