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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that search results are only previews and this returns full text, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose details like rate limits, response size limits, or behavior for invalid/nonexistent post IDs, which would be valuable for a batch retrieval tool.

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?

Three sentences, all informative: the action, the use case, and the contrast with search previews. No filler or redundancy. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read-only batch retrieval tool with one parameter and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains when to use it and what it returns. The only minor gap is not describing behavior for missing/invalid IDs or response format, but the output schema is absent and the tool is simple enough that this is a small omission.

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%: the only parameter, post_ids, is described as 'Array of post IDs to get full text for'. The description adds the context that these are post IDs and the result is full text, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('full text body of one or more posts by ID'), and explicitly contrasts with search results that include only a short preview. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_post and search_posts.

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 after search when complete content is needed for summarizing, comparing, or deep analysis, and notes that search results only include a preview. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly differentiates from search_posts.

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