Check what happened to a post

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

The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations, such as the possible statuses and the specific nuance that an empty post_id on PUBLISH_COMPLETE is normal due to moderation delays. This explains expected non-error behavior and the fail_reason field, which is critical for correct interpretation. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose immediately and then adds necessary status explanations and the moderation caveat. There is no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: statuses, failure reason, and the moderation edge case. It does not detail the exact response structure, but given the simplicity and the annotations, it is sufficiently complete. A slightly more explicit mention of what the response contains would push it to a 5.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, although it reinforces that publish_id is the one returned at creation, which matches the schema. No additional parameter-level guidance is needed.

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 the tool's purpose: tracking the status of a post created by post_video, post_photos, or the drafts tools. It names the specific resource (a post by its publish_id) and distinguishes it from siblings like list_videos or post_video by focusing on status tracking of a known post.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool for posts created by specific creation tools, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended scenario is unambiguous. Sibling tools like list_videos serve a different purpose, so the guidance is adequate.

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