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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by listing the returned data elements (transcript, note, verdict, vote counts), which helps the agent understand the tool's output without needing to infer from the output schema. However, it does not mention any potential errors, rate limits, or data freshness, though these are less critical for a simple read operation with a rich output schema.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states what the tool does and what it returns, and the second provides situational guidance. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded. This is a model of concise, effective tool documentation.

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 lookup tool with one parameter, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The presence of an output schema means return values are defined elsewhere, so the description doesn't need to detail them. The annotation set covers safety, and the sibling list is small and unambiguous. Nothing material is missing.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the schema already documents the single 'id' parameter fully. The description does not add additional parameter-level context (e.g., format, constraints) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no extra semantic depth added beyond what the agent can see in the schema.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('one post from goodbotbad.bot'), and the exact fields returned ('full transcript, the submitter's note, the verdict and the vote counts'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like search_posts (search) and submit_transcript (submit) by focusing on fetching a single post by id, and implicitly contrasts with complete_pair which completes a pair rather than reading a 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 states when to use this tool: 'Use it to see exactly what was submitted before offering the other half of a pair, or to quote it back to your human.' This provides a clear directive for the agent, making it obvious when to invoke this tool over alternatives. It even explains the workflow context (offering the other half of a pair) which ties into sibling tools.

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