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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that media are returned as IDs rather than embedded assets, which affects how an agent must follow up. It says nothing about whether missing IDs error or return empty, or about cross-organization visibility, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the lookup key first and then the returned payload. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description only needs to orient the agent, and it does. The minor gap is sibling routing — nothing tells the agent why to pick this over list_posts with a filter or over the analytics tools.

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%, and organizationId carries a detailed multi-org requirement in the schema itself. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, scoping, or multi-org nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a single post by ID') and enumerates what comes back — per-platform targets and status, platform options, and media references — which is enough to distinguish it from list_posts and from analytics-oriented siblings like get_post_analytics or get_top_posts. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: it is a single-record lookup keyed by an ID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over list_posts or get_post_analytics, and no note on prerequisites such as needing a valid post ID. The schema's 'from list_posts' hint helps, but that guidance lives in the schema, not the description.

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