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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real value by disclosing that contact details are redacted from the returned text and that the payload is list_inspiration's fields plus full text. It does not discuss size limits or truncation of long posts, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and retrieval keys before the licensing guidance, and the length is proportionate to what it conveys. It is a dense run-on sentence, but each clause (return shape, redaction, usage restriction, attribution) 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 single-parameter, read-only, closed-world getter with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back, where the id comes from, and how the content may be used. Remaining gaps (missing-vs-found behavior, text length) are minor given the simple contract.

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% and the schema description already states 'id (uuid) or external_id (e.g. insp-b01-001) from list_inspiration', so the description largely restates existing parameter documentation. Baseline 3 applies: the schema carries the burden and the description adds no extra syntax or format detail.

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 (reads one curated post), the exact resource (PostPen Inspiration Hub post), and the two accepted keys (id or external_id). It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling list_inspiration by naming it as the source of the key and noting the return is 'the same fields as list_inspiration plus text'.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (mirror structure, hooks and format, never copy verbatim, name the author) and implies the lookup flow by pointing at list_inspiration for the id. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternative tools for other retrieval needs.

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