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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond that: only 'published' content is returned, implying drafts or private items are not accessible. It says nothing about what happens on a missing or unpublished ID, but with annotations carrying the main burden a 3 is fair.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and ends with the lookup key. No filler, no 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 read tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and complete safety annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The only remaining gap is the absence of routing guidance toward or away from the search sibling, which is minor given how simple the tool is.

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 single post_id parameter is typed as integer, bounded at minimum 1, and described as a 'Numeric WordPress post or page ID.' The description's 'by numeric ID' adds no detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full schema coverage 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 states a specific verb ('Returns'), a specific resource ('one published Alkemata post or page'), and the lookup key ('by numeric ID'), so an agent can immediately tell what it fetches. It does not explicitly name the sibling alkemata-search-published-content as the alternative, but the singular 'one ... by numeric ID' framing implicitly contrasts with a search tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alkemata-search-published-content, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., that the ID must come from a prior search). Usage must be inferred entirely from the singular-vs-search framing.

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