Check post for missing fields

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the per-channel granularity of the result set, which is genuine value, but says nothing about return format, ordering, or whether validation is live versus cached.

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, with the purpose clause last. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of signalling return content, and it does so reasonably ('per-channel validation problems / missing required fields'). For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, though it does not describe the shape or severity semantics of the problems returned.

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% with a single postId parameter already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail about postId, so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns per-channel validation problems and missing required fields for a post. That is clearly distinct from a plain postsider_get_post, though it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool.

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 trailing clause 'so they can be fixed before publishing' implies the pre-publish validation workflow, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., get_post, get_publishing_state) and no stated prerequisites.

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