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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful return-value details (content map, status, timestamps, dashboardUrl) that go beyond the annotation. No contradiction exists, and the description provides additional context about what the read operation returns.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key return fields without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and a single parameter, the description covers the essential behavior and return payload. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it vs. siblings, but that gap is partially mitigated by the clarity of the purpose. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only single-fetch tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by its postId' but does not explain the origin of the ID (e.g., from list operations) or its format. Given only one parameter and a universally understood concept, the minimal mention is adequate but not detailed.

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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch', the resource 'a single post', and the scope 'draft or scheduled'. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (list_drafts, list_scheduled_posts) and metric/status tools (get_post_metrics, get_publish_status) by emphasizing it returns the full content map and metadata.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a single post by ID, but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like get_post_metrics or list_scheduled_posts. It does clarify it covers both drafts and scheduled posts, which narrows its context, but no explicit exclusions or alternate routing are provided.

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