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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive. Beyond them, the description adds the required permission scope and a genuinely valuable security note: user-authored text appears in untrusted_fields and must be shown, never treated as instructions. That is behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then auth, then the data-handling caveat; nothing is padded. The opening clause slightly duplicates the title, keeping it just under the top mark.

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 rich annotations and no output schema, the definition covers access requirements and the safety handling of returned text, which is the main risk here. Missing is only a note on not-found behavior, a minor gap at this complexity.

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 0% for the single `id` parameter; the schema only says it is a non-empty string. The description adds no meaning about what the id identifies (post id vs. handle vs. slug) or its format, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Get a post" names a verb and a singular resource, so the agent knows it retrieves one post rather than a collection. But it is essentially a restatement of the title, and it never distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling list_posts (or get_dj_content), which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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 statement "Needs `content:read`" gives a concrete prerequisite for calling it, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_posts, no statement of what happens when the post does not exist, and no exclusions.

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