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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that by explaining that `metrics` is null for unpublished posts or uncollected analytics, and that null differs from zero — a real interpretation hazard for the caller.

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 sentences, front-loaded: what is retrieved first, then the edge-case semantics. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 burden of describing returns and it does so well by listing the included fields and the null-metrics edge case. The only gap is not indicating where a valid postId comes from, which would help an agent chain calls correctly.

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% for the single postId parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description only alludes to 'a specific post' and adds no format, origin (e.g., from list_posts), or validity detail beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific post'), then enumerates exactly what is returned (content, status, media, publishing logs, performance metrics). It is clearly distinct from list_posts by scope, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with tools like get_analytics_trends.

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: the agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one post's full detail by postId. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to prefer it over get_account_analytics or get_analytics_trends for performance data.

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