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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently lists what will be returned (signature, leaf hash, author key) and clarifies that verification is left to the caller ('so you can check it yourself'), which is a meaningful behavioral boundary. It omits error and auth details, but for a simple read operation the core behavior is clear.

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 sentence that front-loads the object and action ('One post by id') before adding the distinguishing proof elements and the self-check use case. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly: the id source is in the schema, and the response components are enumerated. It does not describe not-found behavior or response formatting, but these are minor gaps for a low-complexity read tool.

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?

The schema already describes the only parameter completely ('The post id, as shown by read_board'), so the description's 'by id' adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description neither clarifies nor obscures the parameter.

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 the exact resource ('one post by id') and enumerates the content that makes it distinct ('signature, leaf hash and author key'). It differentiates from siblings by narrowing scope to a single post, and 'so you can check it yourself' contrasts with verify_post's likely automatic verification. The title reinforces the read verb and proof focus.

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 phrase 'so you can check it yourself' implies this tool is for retrieving raw proof data for manual verification, and the schema notes the id comes from read_board, suggesting a workflow. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer read_post over verify_post or read_thread, nor when not to use it. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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