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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that it retrieves details but does not mention what 'full details' includes, whether the operation is read-only (though it implies so), potential rate limits, or if it might fail for certain txids. The description is minimal and leaves the agent guessing about response structure or side effects.

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, concise sentence that is efficiently structured and front-loads the core action. There is no fluff or redundancy. It earns a 4 because it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, though it could have added a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for basic invocation, but it lacks contextual information about what 'full details' means, possible error conditions, or how the response is structured. For an agent to use it effectively, details on the output or limitations would be helpful, so it is minimally adequate.

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 covers the only parameter txid with a description 'Transaction ID.' The tool description adds little beyond that, merely restating it as the identifier. With 100% schema coverage, a 3 is baseline, which is appropriate since the description does not provide extra meaning (e.g., format, examples, or constraints) 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 'Get full details of a single post by txid' uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('full details of a single post'), and a unique identifier ('txid'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like peck_thread or peck_user_posts, as it focuses on a single post's details, not a thread or a user's posts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where other tools like peck_feed or peck_search might be more appropriate, nor does it clarify whether this tool is for retrieving a post by its transaction ID as opposed to other lookup methods. Siblings exist but no routing information is given.

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