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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it offers only a single clause. It discloses one useful trait (the response includes per-platform publish status), but says nothing about authentication/permission requirements, not-found or invalid-ID behavior, or how the per-platform data is shaped.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause (single post, by ID, per-platform publish status) earns its place. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions fall short.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is close to adequate: it names the resource, the lookup key, and one notable field in the response. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any error or permission context leaves a gap.

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%, so the sole parameter `id` is undocumented in the schema and only obliquely covered by "by ID" in the description. No format, type expectation (UUID vs. numeric), or example is given, leaving the agent to guess at valid values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get a single post by ID") and scopes it to exactly one item, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_posts. It does not explicitly name any sibling (e.g., get_post_stats) for contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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 must already hold a post ID, which is the natural trigger for this tool. There is no statement of when to prefer it over get_post_stats or list_posts, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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