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

Although annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, the description adds important behavioral details: full Markdown body including paywalled content, images as URLs, lossy conversion of buttons/embeds/footnotes, and publish_at for scheduled posts. These are exactly the kind of data-shape and lossiness caveats an agent needs.

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 definition is front-loaded and mostly efficient, starting with the returned fields and then adding caveats. There is minor redundancy in repeating that the full body is Markdown and that it returns one post, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears responsibility for explaining return values. It does so thoroughly, covering fields, Markdown body, paywall inclusion, image handling, unsupported rich elements, and scheduled-post metadata, making the tool complete enough to invoke 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the single post_id parameter, including that it comes from list_posts. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting; a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource, stating it returns one full post from the publication, whether draft, scheduled, or published. It clearly distinguishes this from list-oriented siblings like list_posts and metrics siblings like get_post_stats by emphasizing the complete body and metadata of a single post.

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 gives a clear context for use: retrieving a full post, including body content and paywalled parts. It also warns that writing the body back via update_draft will drop buttons, embeds, and footnotes, but it does not explicitly say when to choose list_posts or other sibling tools instead.

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