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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about what is returned (content, status, scheduling info), but it does not disclose operational details such as pagination, authorization, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a clear verb, object, and scope. Every word carries meaning; there is no repetition of the tool name or generic filler.

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?

This is a simple, read-only getter with one required parameter and an output schema. Together, the description and schema provide enough for an agent to know what the tool does, what input is required, and what to expect, without extra prose.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: post_id is already documented as the ID to retrieve and is marked required. The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides.

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'), a clearly scoped resource ('a specific post'), and specific details (content, status, scheduling info). It distinguishes from posts_list by emphasizing 'specific post', though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 implies the use case (retrieving full details for a single post, including status/scheduling info), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like posts_list or when not to use it. No alternative tools are mentioned.

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