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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: it returns the *working document / current revision* and explicitly performs no preview or publish side effect, which distinguishes it behaviorally from preview_post.

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 tight sentences with zero filler and the primary use condition front-loaded in the first clause. Every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is largely unnecessary, though the description helpfully characterizes the returned object as the working document. The remaining gap is the missing semantics for the 'postId' parameter.

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% for the single required parameter 'postId'. The description never mentions the parameter or its expected format (ID vs slug vs UUID), even though the schema only supplies a length constraint. With a non-trivial required identifier, the description should compensate and does not.

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 ('reading an existing post and its current revision'), which lets an agent distinguish it from preview_post, publish_post, and update_post by effect. It stops short of naming the sibling tools it is not, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to reading before editing, and rules out the adjacent workflows ('without enabling a public preview or publishing anything'), which implicitly routes the agent away from preview_post and publish_post. No named alternatives, but the condition for use is clear.

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