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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses the markdown-plus-citation-block output shape and the tombstone-instead-of-404 semantics for retracted records. However, it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, whether it is read-only, or rate/size limits, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and output format, followed by the one non-obvious behavioral caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter read/export tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool produces and how retracted records behave, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits parameter detail and auth context, but the core contract is present.

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% and the description never mentions the post_id parameter at all, so there is no clarification of identifier format (ID vs slug) or how retracted/archived posts map to the ID. The name is partly self-describing, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Export one record') plus the output format ('as markdown with a citation block'), which implicitly separates it from siblings like hiveposts_get_post or hiveposts_library. It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so it is clear but not sibling-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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you want a markdown rendition of a single record,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative versus get_post or post_versions. The retraction note is behavioral, not routing guidance.

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