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

Well beyond the annotations, the description explains the content encoding: blocks appear as ```artifact fences editable in place, live values appear as {{members_count}} tokens with resolved numbers in live_values, and paragraphs are enumerated by order in the raw HTML. That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from the schema or from readOnlyHint/openWorldHint. What it omits — whether the HTML is expensive to fetch, whether unpublished/draft state is included, and any failure behavior — keeps it at 4.

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 content is dense and mostly earns its place, but it is a single run-on held together by em dashes and parentheticals, and it opens with a fragment rather than front-loading the verb. The artifact-fence/live-value explanation is valuable but would read better as a separate structured clause.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return shape, and it does so thoroughly: facts, Markdown with embedded artifacts and live placeholders, resolved live_values, and raw HTML with paragraph ordering. Missing are draft/published scope and size or performance expectations for the HTML payload, which matter for a read tool on rich content.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the site scoping emphasis ("On one site of the account, named in site"). post_id gets no additional meaning beyond the schema's "id from list_posts". Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 makes specific what a single-post read returns: facts (tags, authors, cover, meta, translations, blocks), content as Markdown, and raw HTML. It implicitly separates itself from list_posts ("One post in full") but never names a sibling, and the opening fragment "On one site of the account, named in site" delays the actual purpose statement.

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 by what the tool returns; there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing away from edit_post, read_site_page, or list_posts. The one useful pointer is the note that HTML paragraph order is what create_block's after_paragraph counts, which tells an agent when this data becomes relevant downstream.

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